Judgment:
1. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was transferred from Achenkovil Timber Depot to Kerala Forest School, Arippa, by Ext.P3 order dated 4.12.2009. Challenging the said order, the Writ Petition was filed. According to him, the transfer was in violation of the norms governing the same, because he has got only one one year's service left before retirement. Secondly, it was pointed out that the transfer was vitiated by malafidies. According to him, he is an honest officer and was doing everything possible to increase the revenue from the sale of timber. Such attitude of the appellant was disliked by the syndicate of auction bidders, which was very active in the timber depot. Therefore, false complaints were filed against him, which were enquired into by the Divisional Forest Officer, Timber Sales Division, Thiruvananthapuram. The said officer was not on good terms with him. Based on his report, the transfer was ordered, it is submitted. Therefore, it is vitiated by malafidies. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned Single Judge directed the Government Pleader to get instructions. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that there were several complaints against the petitioner and therefore, the Chief Conservator of Forests was constrained to transfer him. In view of the above submission, the learned Single Judge declined to accept the contention of the appellant that the transfer was vitiated by malafidies. But, he was given liberty to file representation against Ext.P3. Subject to that direction, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
2. The appellant, along with the appeal memorandum, produced the memo of charges and statement of allegations served on him. According to him, all the allegations mentioned in the memo of charges/statement of allegations are unfounded and he is being victimised because of his honest ways.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who reiterated that the transfer is vitiated by malafidies and it is ordered against the norms and therefore, the same should be quashed. We heard the learned Government Pleader, who supported the impugned order of transfer as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
4. It is settled by several decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court that the High Court can interfere with a transfer order, if only, it is shown to be issued in violation of any statutory provisions or is vitiated by malafidies. The appellant, admittedly, does not have a case that the transfer order is contrary to any statutory provisions. The norms are formulated by the Government to guide it, while ordering transfers and not to govern the powers of the Government in the matter of transfer. In exigencies of service, transfer can always be ordered as per the norms, even if, the same is against the norms governing normal tenure of an incumbent at a station or the right of an incumbent to be retained in his choice station on the eve of his retirement.
5. Going by the materials on record, it is clear that the petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings for his commissions and omissions as the Depot Officer in charge of sale. Whether those allegations are correct or not is a matter, which has to be decided by the enquiring authority and thereafter, by the disciplinary authority. While considering the validity of the transfer, we cannot collaterally go into such things. In view of the allegations against the appellant, we are of the view that no ground has been made out warranting interference with the transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. But, it is clarified that, if the appellant has preferred any representations pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the consideration of the same by the Government, in accordance with law, will not be affected by the view taken by us regarding the validity of the transfer.