K J SAVY S/O JOSEPH Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD; CHIEF ENGINEER(CIVIL CONSTRUCTION); EXECUTIVE ENGINEER; SHAJU M P DRIVER SPECIAL GRADE-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is Driver Grd-I working under the first respondent. He was posted at the B& S Division, Angamaly since 1999. Ext.P1 is an order issued by the 2nd respondent considering the request made by the Project Manager, Peechi & Chimmony Small Hydro Electric Project according sanction to transfer the jeep bearing registration No.KEE 3599 along with the driver, who is the petitioner, to the project site. In pursuance to Ext.P1, the jeep was transferred and the petitioner was relieved on 30.9.2009 and the petitioner joined the said office on 8.10.2009. In this writ petition he challenges the transfer mainly contending that the 2nd respondent who has issued Ext.P1order has no power to issue the order of transfer. According to the petitioner it is only the Chief Engineer(HRM) has the power to pass orders in the nature of Ext.P1.

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in pursuance to the order dated 16.10.2009. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that he has accorded sanction to the Executive Engineer to transfer the Jeep along with the Driver who was the petitioner and that it was consequently, the petitioner was transferred. It is stated that the Chief Engineer(Civil Construction) South has jurisdiction for execution of the project in the southern region including Thrissur District and that as per the existing rules the 2nd respondent has powers to order transfer.

(3.) Although the petitioner has contended that only the Chief Engineer(HRM) has the power and asserted for the position that there was guidelines to that effect, guidelines have not been produced. The 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit has asserted that he has the power. During the course of the hearing the Standing Counsel made available the Board order dated 9.11.2005 which also says that the 2nd respondent has administrative and technical control over the implementation of the project in Thrissur District. On the materials produced this court is faced with the assertion of the petitioner and the counter assertion by the respondents. In such a situation this court will not be justified in accepting one plea against the other. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent lacks jurisdiction to Ext.P1 order cannot be accepted.