Transfer Order In Contemplation Of Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Operate As Disguised Punishment : Kerala High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh, set aside the transfer of a Kerala State Road Transport Corporation employee to Kasaragod, holding that a transfer in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings must be justified and cannot operate as a disguised punishment. The case arose from an article the employee published in a union house journal addressing the Corporation's financial condition and anticipated policy shifts under a different political dispensation, which management treated as misconduct. The Court found no genuine risk of witness influence or record tampering warranting such relocation, though it left the respondents at liberty to pursue independent departmental proceedings.
The petitioner, a Selection Grade Assistant employed with the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), challenged a memorandum dated 30 January 2026 issued by the Executive Director (Administration) transferring him from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod. The petitioner had been in service since April 2010 and was also serving as District Secretary of the Kerala State Transport Workers Union (INTUC). The union published a monthly periodical circulated among KSRTC employees.
In January 2026, the petitioner authored an article in the journal discussing KSRTC’s financial distress, employee difficulties, strikes, shortage of spare parts, and the impact of experiments such as K-SWIFT. The article also speculated on possible changes if a new government assumed office, including management reforms, salary and pension packages, and introduction of electric and CNG buses.
The respondents contended that the article contained misleading statements intended to create unrest among employees. They argued that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to grave misconduct, attracting Section 186 of the IPC, and justified disciplinary proceedings. Respondents relied on a circular dated 3 November 2021 prohibiting defamatory publications through new generation media and invoked provisions of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Exhibits included transfer guidelines and photographs of strikes allegedly conducted by the petitioner and union members.
Justice N. Nagareesh recorded: “Ext.P1 is a house journal of the Kerala State Transport Workers Union affiliated to INTUC. In the January, 2026 issue, the petitioner published an article, which is produced as Ext.P1.”
The Court noted: “In the article, the petitioner has stated that the KSRTC is in a financial distress and has debts. The employees are facing difficulties, resulting in strikes. Due to shortage of spare parts, buses are getting damaged in Depots, affecting rural bus services.”
It was further stated: “The published article goes on to state that if UDF comes to power in the State, there will be a Management Plan and a pro-labour approach. Through packages, the salary and pension of the employees can be ensured. More buses will be introduced and the Central Government funds will be used to propagate electric buses and CNG buses.”
The respondents’ position was recorded: “The respondents have considered the above publication of the article as a misconduct and transferred the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.”
The Court referred to precedent: “In the judgment in Anil Kumar A.P. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and others [2018 (4) KLT 649], this Court has held that servitude is an outlook of an individual and not a governing norm in a public Institution. Discipline is a norm. Discipline and servitude are to be distinguished.”
Justice Nagareesh observed: “If an employee speaks out in the social media in a general perspective which is not inconsistent with the collective interest of the Institution, that is part of his right of free speech. No authority should expect one to be silent. Survival of public Institution depends upon how it accounts for democratic values. Free expression is the corner stone of democratic value.”
On the issue of transfer, the Court stated: “An employee can be transferred in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Transfers in such cases are made in order to facilitate pure and impartial enquiry. It is so ordered to avoid the delinquent employee influencing the witnesses and manipulating the records in order to escape from punishment.”
Finally, the Court recorded: “In the facts of the case, there is not even a remote chance to conclude that the petitioner will be able to influence witnesses or manipulate records. In the circumstances, I am of the firm view that transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod is punitive. The transfer can only be treated as a high handed arbitrary action on the part of the respondents.”
The Court directed: “The writ petition is therefore allowed. Exts.P2 and P3 are set aside. “It is made clear that the respondents will be free to proceed against the petitioner in departmental proceedings, if the respondents deem it necessary.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. P. Mohandas (Ernakulam), Sri. K. Sudhinkumar, Sri. Sabu Pullan, Shri. R. Bhaskara Krishnan, Shri. Bharath Mohan, Dr. K. P. Satheesan (Sr.)
For the Respondents: Sri. Renjith Thampan (Sr.), Shri. Deepu Thankan, Standing Counsel KSRTC
Case Title: Sivakumar S. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 : KER : 11913
Case Number: WP (C) No. 4110 of 2026
Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh
