Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH
Sivakumar S., S/o. K.S. Sundaresan Nair – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary, Transport (A) Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's employment background and the circumstances of transfer. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding publication and disciplinary action. (Para 5 , 7) |
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 3rd 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
An employee's transfer as punitive action without adequate justification violates their constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Administrative transfers pending disciplinary procedures do not constitute punitive measures if rationalized to uphold organizational functionality.
Point of law: Transfer is an incident of service and that a government servant is liable to the transferred to a similar post in the same cadre.
Transfer orders are within the employer's discretion and not subject to judicial review unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that NEEPCO is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and the employment of the petitioner, though contended to be a co....
Point of Law : Employment and Service matter - Order of Transfer quashed - Since recommendations to transfer petitioner had been mooted by an extra constitutional authority, who has no role in the fu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
