Kerala High Court
Mohanan Pallath vs The Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 24 October, 2013
Author: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
OP (CAT).No. 3947 of 2013 (Z)
--------------------------------------------
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.No. 969/2013 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 24-10-2013)
................
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
------------------------------------
MOHANAN PALLATH,
SR.TOA (G), HRMS NO.198901986, RESIDING AT PALLITHARA,
P.O.KOROM, (VIA) PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670 307,
NOW WORKING UNDER DET (NWO), BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
CHENGALA IN KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA.
BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V. RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------------
1. THE BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,
BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., SOUTH BAZAR
KANNUR-670 002.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN IN CHARGE),
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,
BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., SOUTH BAZAR,
KANNUR-670 002.
3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(ADMN),
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,
BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., SOUTH BAZAR,
KANNUR-670 002.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, S.C,BSNL
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
vs
OP (CAT).No. 3947 of 2013 (Z)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
----------------
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONNO.969 OF 2013 OF
CAT ERNAKULAM WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED NIL FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.969 OF 2013.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2013 OF THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH
IN O.A.NO.969 OF 2013.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY NOTICE DATED 20.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE CHAIR PERSON,
COMMITTEE FOR PREVENTION OF SEXUAL HARRASSMENT OF
WOMEN AT THEIR WORK PLACE, BSNL, KANNUR TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY NOTICE DATED 01.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE
CHAIR PERSON, COMMITTEE FOR PREVENTION OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT THEIR WORK PLACE, BSNL, KANNUR
TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 3.10.2013 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE COMMITTEE FOR PREVENTION OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT THEIR WORK PLACE, BSNL, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 05.11.2013 OF THE INTERNAL
COMPLAINT COMMITTEE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
---------------------------------------
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
vs
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
....................................................................
OP(CAT) No.3947 of 2013
....................................................................
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Petitioner, who is working in BSNL, was transferred from Thaliparamba in Kannur District to Chengala in Kasaragod, which is the next district. He says that the transfer is issued solely on the ground of a complaint made by a woman employee of the BSNL attributing to sexual harassment against the petitioner. He stands to say that the procedure adopted by transferring him out of his station is unsustainable, since complaint of a woman employee ought to have been made over for appropriate proceedings in terms of the laws to the committee concerned, including provisions for conciliatory procedures. With passage of time, we are now told by the learned standing counsel for the BSNL that the enquiry proceedings in this regard is over and the petitioner has been served with a copy of the findings and further orders. Whatever that be, this is not an original petition on which we would dilate on such matters. The short issue is as to whether the Central Administrative Tribunal acted erroneously in jurisdiction and law, while it refused OP(CAT)3947/13 -2- to interfere with the order of transfer. The authority of the Officer, who transferred the petitioner, to do so is not disputed in terms of power. No allegation as to malice, malafides or that the said Officer, who issued the transfer order, was otherwise actuated, is also not made. We do not think that the order of transfer could be treated as arbitrary. It was open to the superior Officer to choose the course of action, including, if necessary, to keep a person against whom allegations are raised away from a particular office, for a particular point of time. Now that the enquiry is over, the petitioner can proceed on the basis of the said report, or if the report is against him, he can seek measures before the establishment as regards that. We do not, therefore, find any ground to issue any further order except to record that any representation from the petitioner could be considered, appropriately, by the Officer at the competent level in the BSNL. This original petition is ordered accordingly.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg