SAKTHAN N. Vs. K.K.DIVAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing Ext.P-13 report passed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The petitioner was the Minister for Transport of the Government of Kerala from 5-9-2004 to 12-5-2006. The first respondent filed a complaint under Section 9 of the Act seeking an investigation into the allegations made in the complaint and for a declaration that the petitioner, being a public servant, shall not hold the post held by him and to make a report to the competent authority under Section 12(3) of the Act. Out of several allegations, the two allegations in Ext.P-1 complaint have ended in findings against the petitioner which are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner denied the allegations by filing counter before the Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta after investigation made Ext. P-13 report finding that the aforesaid allegations have been substantiated by the complainant. In the report, no recommendation was made by the Lok Ayukta as required under Section 12(3) of the Act. The said report was forwarded to the Governor.

(3.) Learned senior counsel Sri O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioner assailed the finding in Ext. P-13 by contending that the findings recorded against the petitioner were not based on legal evidence and the Lok Ayukta has misdirected in both point of law and facts in finding that the conduct of the office of the petitioner in forwarding Ext. P-1 relating to transfer of drivers and conductors was contrary to the provisions contained in KSRTC Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the office of the Minister had only forwarded the representation from the employees of the KSRTC seeking transfer to places of their choice. No specific direction was issued instructing KSRTC to give transfer and posting to places of the choice of the employees. No driver or conductor in KSRTC was affected by the alleged so-called direction of the petitioner or his additional private secretary. Therefore, there is no impediment in giving transfer to a driver or conductor according to their choice or affecting the interest of the KSRTC. He further submitted that the number of vacancies of drivers and conductors in KSRTC would come to 10,000 and the regular staff will come to 6000 each. Therefore, the Lok Ayukta is wholly without jurisdiction to consider the legality of the transfer and posting of staff of KSRTC in the wake of Ext. R-1 (a) judgment of this Court by which the position is res Integra that in the wake of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act action taken in respect of appointment, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of public servants as enumerated in Clause (d) of 2nd schedule, there is total exclusion of the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta. So, the finding against the petitioner in respect of transfer of drivers and conductors is wholly without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.