An employee's transfer as punitive action without adequate justification violates their constitutional right to freedom of expression.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

The petitioner, who is a Selection Grade Assistant working at the Chief Office of KSRTC, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P2 memorandum dated 30.01.2026 issued by the 3rdrespondent.

2. The petitioner states that he is a regularly recruited employee of the KSRTC, who is in service since 22.04.2010. The petitioner is the District Secretary of the Kerala State Transport Workers Union (INTUC), Thiruvananthapuram North. The workers Union is publishing a periodical which has circulation among the employees of KSRTC.

3. The petitioner published an article regarding the financial position of the KSRTC and the expected prospects of KSRTC after a new Government assumes power. When the petitioner's article was published in the journal, the 3^rd respondent transferred the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod as per Ext.P2 order dated 30.01.2026. It is a punishment transfer, contends the petitioner.

4. On the same day, Ext.P3 Memorandum of Charges was issued relieving the petitioner from the office. The petitioner states that the article published by the petitioner does not contain any defamatory statement or allegations against the Government or the Management. The only depiction is regarding the present stage of the KSRTC and the future of the KSRTC, if a new Government assumes office. Transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod is highly arbitrary.

5. The petitioner cannot be transferred for publication of an article in a house journal. The right of freedom and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed as long as the same is not affecting the existence of the establishment. Exts.P2 and P3 are therefore liable to be quashed.

6. Respondents 2 to 4 resisted the writ petition. The respondents stated that the petitioner published statement contrary to facts with deliberate intention of spreading misleading information about the Corporation and thereby creating unrest and polarisation among the KSRTC employees.

7. The action of the petitioner amounts to grave misconduct and has attracted Section 186 of the IPC, obstructing the public servants of the Corporation to discharge their duty. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, contend the respondents.

8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. K.P. Satheesan assisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Bharath Mohan and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC Sri. Deepu Thankan.

9. Ext.P1 is a house journal of the Kerala State Transport Workers Union affiliated to INTUC. In the January, 2026 issue, the petitioner published an article, which is produced as Ext.P1. In the article, the petitioner has stated that the KSRTC is in a financial distress and has debts. The employees are facing difficulties, resulting in strikes. Due to shortage of spare parts, buses are getting damaged in Depots, affecting rural bus services. There is allegation that experiments like K-SWIFT has helped only to divide the KSRTC.

10. The published article goes on to state that if UDF comes to power in the State, there will be a Management Plan and a pro-labour approach. Through packages, the salary and pension of the employees can be ensured. More buses will be introduced and the Central Government funds will be used to propagate electric buses and CNG buses. UDF will be giving priority to professional management devoid of politics. They will introduce an approach treating the KSRTC as a service rather than profit making business.

11. The respondents have considered the above publication of the article as a misconduct and transferred the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod in c