High Court Sets Aside Punitive Transfer of KSRTC Employee Over Union Article

A single-judge bench of Justice N. Nagaresh of the Kerala High Court heard a writ petition challenging a memorandum of transfer and a relieving order issued by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) which sent a selection grade assistant from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The petition contested the transfer and relief order dated 30.01.2026 (Exts.P2 and P3) issued after the petitioner published an article in a union house journal about KSRTC's financial position and future prospects.

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside Exts.P2 and P3 holding that the transfer was punitive and not justified by any real risk of the petitioner influencing witnesses or manipulating records. The Court emphasised that transfers made "in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings" were permissible only to "facilitate pure and impartial enquiry" and to prevent interference with the inquiry, and that absent such circumstances a transfer would be punitive even if it did not carry stigma. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. It is in such eventualities alone that a transfer order can be passed for the sole reason that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Without there having any such possibilities, if an employee is transferred, that can be treated as punitive, even if the transfer order does not attach stigma." The judgment further described the order as "a high handed arbitrary action on the part of the respondents."

Background The petitioner, Sivakumar S., was a regularly recruited Selection Grade Assistant in KSRTC since 2010 and served as District Secretary of the Kerala State Transport Workers Union (INTUC). He authored an article published in the union's monthly magazine Transport Veekshanam (January 2026) discussing KSRTC's debt, operational difficulties, spare-part shortages, strikes, and the possible policy approach if a different political formation assumed office. The KSRTC respondents treated the publication as misconduct, relied on a November 2021 circular prohibiting defamatory publications through new generation media, and issued a transfer memorandum and relieving order on 30.01.2026 while also initiating disciplinary charges.

The respondents contended that the article contained contrary-to-fact statements designed to mislead employees, create unrest and polarisation, and attract provisions such as Section 186 IPC; they argued that disciplinary action and transfer were therefore justified. The petitioner challenged the orders before the High Court under Article 226, asserting that his freedom of expression under Article 19 could not be curtailed absent harm to the institution and that the transfer was arbitrary and punitive.

The High Court noted authority including Anil Kumar A.P. v. Mahatma Gandhi University (2018 (4) KLT 649) on the distinction between discipline and servitude, and observed that it would not determine at this stage the ultimate merits of any disciplinary proceedings or whether employees were prohibited from publishing in journals. The Court found on the facts that there was "not even a remote chance" that the petitioner would influence witnesses or manipulate records, and therefore the transfer from the southern to the northern end of the State constituted punitive action. The writ petition was allowed; Exts.P2 and P3 were set aside. The Court clarified that the respondents remained free to proceed with departmental proceedings if they considered it necessary.

Case Details: Case No.: WP(C) No. 4110 of 2026 (2026:KER:11913) Case Title: Sivakumar S. v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri. P. Mohandas (Ernakulam); Sri. K. Sudhinkumar; Sri. Sabu Pullan; Shri. R. Bhaskara Krishnan; Shri. Bharath Mohan; Dr. K.P. Satheesan (Sr.) For the Respondent(s): Sri. Renjith Thampan (Sr.); Shri. Deepu Thankan, Standing Counsel, KSRTC