Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner, an Assistant Manager in the service of the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development, otherwise known as the Matsyafed, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the second respondent, transferring him from the office of the Matsyafed at Willington Island in Kochi to the district office of Matsyafed in Kasaragod district. By that order, the sixth respondent who was working in the Kasaragod district office was transferred and posted as the petitioner's substitute at Kochi.

5. I heard Sri.Shyam Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.George Poonthottom, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5. Sri.Shyam Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on clause 17(XIII) of the bye laws of the Matsyafed that the Board of Directors alone is competent to appoint officers and staff of the Matsyafed, to punish them and to dismiss them from service and therefore the Managing Director, an officer appointed by the Board of Directors is not empowered to transfer employees of the Matsyafed. The learned counsel also contended that the report referred to in Ext.P1 order was not sent through official channels, that it was not produced by respondents 1, 2 and 5 along with their counter affidavit but only by the fourth respondent and that in the light of the facts set out in the writ petition and in the reply affidavit, the petitioner is justified in  contending that the report referred to in Ext.P1 order was created with a view to transfer the petitioner. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioner was not absent unauthorisedly, as alleged in Ext.P1 order, that he had not failed to carry out his duties as alleged therein and that the issuance of cheques and payment for goods supplied were never delayed on account of the fact that he had availed leave. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the leave applied for was always sanctioned and as and when inspection was ordered, it was carried out and therefore no reliance can be placed on the contents of Ext.R4(e) report to justify the order of transfer. The learned counsel lastly contended that order of transfer which is rested on allegations of mis-conduct, which has not been established or proved in an enquiry, is punitive in nature and therefore on that score also the order is liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Balan v. District Panchayat Officer, Malappuram (1975 KLT 375), Pushpakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board (1978 KLT 539) and the decision of the Apex Court in G.Sadanandan v. State of Kerala (1966 (3) SCR 590) more particularly paragraph 19 thereof, to contend for the position that the order of transfer in the instant case being one founded on a report maliciously submitted by the fifth respondent, it is liable to be set aside. It is contended that even  assuming that the Managing Director is competent to order transfer, he ought to have decided whether the allegations therein are true or tenable before ordering the transfer.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. It is now well settled by a series of decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004 (11) SCC 402) that an order of transfer can be interfered with only if it is passed by an incompetent authority or is passed in violation of any statutory provisions or is proved to be vitiated by mala fides. In the instant case, the petitioner challenges the order of transfer inter alia on the ground that the Managing Director of Matsyafed is incompetent to transfer him. Reliance is placed on clause 17(XIII) of the bye laws of the Matsyafed in support of the said contention. The stand taken by the respondents on the other hand is that as per the staff regulations of the Matsyafed which were approved by the Government on 7.11.2000, the Managing Director is competent to transfer employees.

12. That takes me to the question whether in view of Ext.P11  decision the order of transfer has ceased to be effective. It is relevant in this context to note that the Managing Committee of Matsyafed was superseded by the Registrar of Fisheries Co-operative Societies on 7.9.2011. That order was challenged in this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 24401 of 2011. The term of the Managing Committee that was superseded was to expire on 16.12.2011. By judgment delivered on 12.12.2011, this Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of supersession and directed the respondents therein to handover the administration of Matsyafed to the Board of Directors. It was thereafter that Ext.P11 decision was taken to revoke and cancel all transfer orders issued after 7.9.2011. The Board of Directors of Matsyafed consists of 15 elected members and 7 ex-officio members including the Registrar of Fisheries Co-operative Societies. As per bye- law 15(h) at least seven days notice should be given to the members of the Managing Committee before a meeting of the Managing Committee is held. Under bye-law 15(d) in the event of an emergency, the meeting can be convened after complying with the stipulations in bye-law 15(b), but before convening such a meeting the Managing Director will have to circulate the agenda among the members of the Managing Committee and the decision taken in that meeting will have to be placed in the next meeting of the Managing  Committee. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that the notice of the meeting held on 16.12.2011 was served on all the members of the Managing Committee including the ex-officio members. The petitioner has also not produced any material to show that the Managing Director had circulated the agenda among the members including the ex-officio members for the purpose of holding a meeting on 16.12.2011, waiving the stipulation regarding seven days notice in bye-law 15(h). In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the decision taken by the elected members of the Managing Committee who met on 16.12.2011 without notice to the ex-officio members of the Managing Committee, to cancel all orders of transfer issued after 7.9.2011. That apart, the petitioner has no case that pursuant to Ext.P11 resolution the fourth respondent was brought back to Kochi or that other employees of the Matsyafed who were transferred out in the interregnum have been transferred back.