The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order issued by the 3rd respondent transferring him from the Chief office, Vigilance Wing, Thiruvanathapuram to the City unit (original branch), Thiruvanthapuram, as part of the disciplinary action proposed. The petitioner is working as Inspector in the Chief Vigilance Wing of the 1st respondent. Allegation in Ext.P5 is to the effect that a special programme for inspection of Buses was introduced by the 2nd respondent, scheduled from 02-06-2014 to 13-06-2014, and as part of that all the Inspectors were directed to tighten bus inspection and leaves of all the Inspectors were controlled. Despite such directions the petitioner absented from duty on 06-06-2014, 09-06-2014, 10-06-2014 and on 11-06-2014, without getting prior sanction of leave. Further allegation is that the petitioner had expressed disagreement with the special programme sought to be implemented, directly to the higher officials of the Corporation. Eventhough the petitioner was informed that he cannot be abstained from implementation of the special programme, he had unauthorisedly absented from duty. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner had committed serious dereliction of duty and acted in violation of directions issued to implement the special programme.
2. Exhibit P5 is challenged stating that, the petitioner is a Law student in the evening course at the Kerala Law Academy Law College, and that he had availed leave on the above said days in connection with the record and certificate verifications. He had produced Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 documents in support of such a claim. According to the petitioner, leave applications were duly submitted before the Vigilance Officer. It is contended that, leave was marked in the Attendance Register on all these days. It is further contended that no specific duty was assigned to the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P6 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent with respect to the special programme proposed. Further contention is to the effect that, eventhough there are other Inspectors in the office of Chief Vigilance Wing who were absent during the relevant dates, they were not transferred and no disciplinary action was initiated against them. Hence the petitioner had impugned the order of transfer as one malafidely issued to victimize the petitioner.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it is stated that the petitioner has not filed any application for exempting him from the official duty nor had submitted any leave applications for the dates on which he was on alleged unauthorised absence. It is contended that no leave application was submitted nor any leave was granted to the petitioner on the days in question. It is alleged that the petitioner had declared his displeasure about the programme when the Vigilance Officer assigned duty to him on the basis of the special programme arranged by the 2nd respondent.
4. Contention regarding non-submission of leave application was refuted by the petitioner through reply affidavit filed, in which it is reiterated that he had submitted leave application to the Vigilance Officer. According to the petitioner, the leave was sanctioned and marked in the attendance register noting 'L'. But it is alleged that the endorsement was converted into 'A', which fact can be revealed from the Attendance Register kept at the Vigilance office.
5. With respect to the contention regarding non- assignment of duty under the special programme, it is mentioned in the counter affidavit that duty was assigned to the petitioner in the sectors of Attingal and Kollam. The Inspectors in the Vigilance Section are also assigned for line inspection from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M., as part of the special programme. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in the Attendance Register it was specifically written by the Vigilance officer that, "all inspectors are deputed for Bus inspection from 02-06-2014 to 13-06-2014” and “all leaves are restricted from 02-06-2014 to 13-06-2014". Learned Standing counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the endorsement made in the Attendance Register to the above effect was admitted in the reply affidavit, but only disputed that it was only a belated endorsement made.
6. With respect to the contention that no action was taken against 2 other Inspectors who were not attending the programme, it is mentioned that they were absented from duty only for one day and two days respectively and Charge Memos were issued to them also. It is mentioned that no action was initiated against several other Inspectors who were working in the various units who abstain from the special programme.
7. According to the Corporation, as an Inspector working in the Vigilance Chief Office, the petitioner should have been more vigilant to implement the special programme. Contention of the respondent is that Ext.P5 is issued as part of disciplinary proceedings proposed against the petitioner and also taking note of administrative convenience and that the transfer order will not affect his promotion prospects.
8. From the rival contentions it is evident that there exists a dispute as to whether the petitioner had unauthorisedly absented from duty on the relevant dates. According to the petitioner the leave applications were submitted and the leave was marked in the Attendance Register. But the respondents have stoutly refuted such contention stating that no leave application was submitted and it was an unauthorised absence. Further, there exists dispute as to whether there was any specific denial in discharging the duties cast upon the petitioner on the basis of the special programme sought to be implemented. The respondents contended that there was sufficient precautions given with respect to implementation of the special programme and leaves were restrained. But the petitioner disputes about assignment of any duty in connection with the special programme. These disputed aspects cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition.
Moreover there is no necessity to adjudicate such question and to arrive at any specific conclusion on each and every aspects, because the challenge is only against the order of transfer, and especially when the transfer ordered is issued in contemplation of a disciplinary action proposed. The petitioner will get sufficient opportunity to disprove the allegations in the proceedings of enquiry which will be conducted as part of the disciplinary action. The only question need to be considered is as to whether the impugned order of transfer is vitiated by malafides and as to whether it is so unreasonable and arbitrary. Petitioner points out inaction against persons who had committed similar absence from duty. But in the counter affidavit it is mentioned that disciplinary proceedings was initiated against 2 other Inspectors in the Chief Vigilance Office. It is further mentioned that disciplinary action was also initiated against many others with respect to dereliction of duty pertaining to implementation of the special programme. Under such circumstances, this court cannot arrive at any conclusive finding that the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides. Further it is pertinent to note that, the petitioner is transferred only from the Chief Vigilance Office, Thiruvananthapuram to the City Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. Learned standing counsel submits that both the offices are situated within a short distance of less than ½ Kilo meter. If on the administrative side the respondents take a decision that the petitioner should be kept away from the office, pending finalisation of the disciplinary action, it cannot be termed as highly unreasonable or arbitrary. Further, as observed, the petitioner cannot contend any extreme inconvenience or prejudice by virtue of the transfer.
9. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this court declines to interference with the order of transfer impugned in this writ petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to seek review of the transfer, if circumstances warrant on a subsequent stage. It is also made clear that, the petitioner will be at liberty to refute all the allegations despite any observations contained in this judgment, during the disciplinary proceedings.
10. The writ petition is hereby dismissed subject to the above observations.
AMG/Pn Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge