T N UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition and left remedy to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum and lead evidence to substantiate his plea regarding victimization.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that only for the reason of raising issues of mismanagement, the appellant, a photographer with the respondent company was transferred to Nagaland. While there was requirement for a photographer in FEDO Udyogamandal, which is a major unit of the Company, there is only minimal operations in Nagaland, which does not require a full time photographer. It is pointed out that, despite the petitioner's role of a photographer in FEDO, photography assignments were given to a particular studio run by a relative of an officer of the company. Only when these and other issues of mismanagement and maladministration were brought to the notice of the higher-ups, the appellant was witch hunted and as a punitive measure, transferred. There was none others to look after the spouse and children of the appellant and he was also troubled by medical ailments. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant is also entitled to the entire salary till he re-joined as per Ext.P10 directions.

(3.) Learned standing counsel for the respondent company would however point out that the appellant is agitating causes which were settled by decisions of this Court. The plea against the transfer was agitated in another writ petition, which was disposed of by Ext.R3(c) judgment. An appeal filed also was rejected as per Ext.R3(d). The appellate judgment being passed on 26.09.2015, the appellant has not divulged the said fact in the present writ petition, which was filed after three years from the dismissal of the writ appeal and after one year from the order imposing punishment at Ext.P10. The appellant cannot have any claim for salary during the period he absented unauthorisedly without complying with the transfer order. The enquiry conducted was in consonance with the principles of natural justice and there is no allegation raised on that count. The appellant was imposed with a penalty of reduction of basic pay by one years increment with cumulative effect, which in appeal was modified as 'without cumulative effect'. The respondent company has been very indulgent with the appellant despite he having remained unauthorisedly absent for more than two years. The writ appeal ought to be dismissed is the contention raised.