Transfers must be based on valid administrative reasons and not punitive; guidelines should be adhered to for legality.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is a Driver under the KSRTC, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 memo under which he has been transferred from Ponkunnam Unit to Puthukkad O/C.

2. The petitioner states that on 01.10.2025, he was driving a Fast Passenger KSRTC Bus from Ponkunnam to Thiruvananthapuram. The distance is more than 210 Km. In the Driver's cabin in the Bus, the petitioner was carrying two bottles of drinking water, due to hot atmosphere. The petitioner was also carrying in his lunch box from home.

3. When the Bus passed Ayoor in the noon, the Transport Minister's car crossed the KSRTC Bus. The Minister came back and obstructed the Bus at the centre of the public road. The Minister was furious as he found two bottles of water kept in front of the driver seat near the front glass. The Minister created unpleasant scene and left the place.

4. On 04.10.12025, the 3^rd respondent-

Executive Officer issued Ext.P1 memorandum transferring the petitioner from Ponkunnam to Thrissur. Soon thereafter, he was informed that the order is kept in abeyance and the petitioner shall report for duty. However, on 07.10.2025, the 4^th respondent-Unit Officer issued an order relieving the petitioner from Ponkunnam to join at Thrissur. The transfer was stated to be for administrative reasons.

5. The petitioner states that there is no administrative reason whatsoever to transfer the petitioner. The transfer is of a punitive nature and is as a consequence of the incident happened on 01.10.2025. The petitioner is serving the KSRTC since 2016. So far, there is not even a single instance of misconduct from the part of the petitioner. Carrying water bottle while undertaking a drive of 210 Km.

cannot be described as a misconduct.

6. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court inSomesh Thivari v. Union of India and others [ (2009) 2 SCC 592 ] and argued that Ext.P1 memorandum would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer. The counsel further relied on the judgment of this Court inGopinathan M. and another v. State of Kerala and others [ 2014 (4) KLT 285 ] and argued that a transfer order passed on materials which were non- existent would amount to colourable exercise of power. The counsel also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court inDirector, Telecommunications (South), Thiruvananthapuram v. Sukumaran Thampi [1984 KLT

476] and argued that where the transfer order is silent and the counter affidavit does not choose to answer, then the Court can adopt the course of quashing the order of transfer.

7. Respondents 1 to 4 resisted the writ petition.

The respondents submitted that transfer is an incident of service as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court inUnion of India and another v. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit [ (2020) 3 SCC 404 ]. Orders of transfer made in exercise of administrative discretion should not ordinarily be interfered, contended the respondents relying on the judgment of this Court inBabu v. State of Kerala [ 1988 (2) KLT 258 ]. 8. The respondents submitted that Clause 11 of the Transfer Guidelines attached to the Pay Revision Agreement 2012 provides for the transfer of employees in connection with disciplinary proceedings on administrative grounds. This Court inNixy James v. KSRTC [ 2023 (3) KLT 893 ] has held that when order of transfer is not bad for statutory violations or malafides, court shall not interfere with the transfer orders.

9. The petitioner was transferred in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines and the transfer is on administrative grounds due to disciplinary issues. The KSRTC has issued Ext.R1(B) memorandum in order to maintain cleanliness in buses. Earnest steps have been taken by the KSRTC to keep the vehicles clean. Employees are bound to give effect to