ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
The petitioner is a Gynecologist in the Taluk Hospital, Cherthala. Following certain allegations that the rate of caesarian in the hospital was unusually high by order dated 25/4/2011 she was transferred to Sulthan Batheri. This transfer was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C)No.12663 of 2011 and an interim order was passed staying the transfer. On the strength of this order, she continued at Cherthala Taluk Hospital.
2. In the meanwhile, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was established and the Writ Petition which was transferred to the Tribunal was re-numbered as T.A.No.714 of 2013. The T.A. was finally disposed of by the Tribunal by Annexure-A2 order dated 13/03/2014 leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Government with a representation and directing that until a decision is taken by the Government thereon the interim order would remain in force.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Annexure-A3 representation mainly praying that she be retained at Cherthala Taluk Hospital itself. This was considered by the Government and Annexure-A4 order was issued, stating that in an enquiry conducted it was found the petitioner had committed dereliction of duty and that she was imposed the punishment of bar of 2 increments. It is also stated that the petitioner had already rendered more than 3 years service at Cherthala Taluk Hospital and that considering the nature of the findings against her it is not an ideal to retain her at Cherthala Taluk Hospital. On that basis she was transferred at Taluk Hospital, Kayamkulam.
4. Challenging Annexure-A4 order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1973 of 2014 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by Ext.P2 order. In this order the Tribunal took the view that having regard to the findings and the punishment imposed on the petitioner, if the appointing authority thought that it is not ideal to retain her at Cherthala Taluk Hospital, such a decision cannot be described as an arbitrary or irrational one, justifying interference. It is challenging Ext.P2 order, this Original Petition is filed.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
6. According to the learned counsel, the order of punishment, which is now relied on against her is under challenge in O.A.No.52 of 2014 pending before the Tribunal and that therefore the said punishment could not have been relied on against her. According to him, even on merits the punishment order is unsustainable. The learned counsel also informed us that the petitioner has only less than 7 months more service left and therefore under the guidelines she is entitled to be posted at a place of her choice and that despite her entitlement, she has been now transferred to a place which is more than 70 km. from her present station.
7. Admittedly the petitioner's post is a transferable post. It is also a fact that at present the punishment which is now relied on against her remains valid. It was mainly taking note of the punishment that was imposed on the petitioner, the Government decided that it would not be in public interest to retain her at Cherthala Taluk Hospital. Such a decision taken by the Government is not shown to be vitiated for any malafide intention and cannot be said to be illegal justifying interference in a proceeding of judicial review. Insofar as the guidelines relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, even if the said guidelines are still in force, in our view the same will have to yield to public interest, which is found against the petitioner.
8. Added to all these, is the fact that the petitioner has completed almost 4 years at Cherthala Taluk Hospital. Taking note of these facts we do not think that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in passing the order.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government is in the process of re-considering the order transferring the petitioner. The Government having issued the order of transfer it is up to the Government to re-consider the same if the circumstances justify such an exercise of power and we do not wish to comment on the same.
The O.P.(KAT) is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj