In a case that stirred both the transport department and the public, the Kerala High Court on Thursday set aside the transfer of a KSRTC driver who was abruptly shifted after a run-in with the State Transport Minister on the highway. Justice N. Nagaresh termed the move “punitive in nature” and said the corporation’s justification of “administrative grounds” was nothing more than a cover-up.
Background
The petitioner, Jaimon Joseph, a KSRTC driver from Ponkunnam Depot in Kottayam, was transferred to Puthukkad in Thrissur following an unusual incident on October 1, 2025. According to the driver, while he was driving a Fast Passenger bus from Ponkunnam to Thiruvananthapuram-a journey of over 210 km-the Transport Minister’s convoy stopped his bus near Ayoor, apparently upset over two bottles of water placed in front of the driver’s seat.
The minister reportedly confronted the driver and left in anger. Within days, on October 4, the KSRTC issued a memo transferring Jaimon to Thrissur “for administrative reasons.” The order was first put on hold, then reinstated three days later.
The driver, represented by Senior Advocate Dr. K.P. Satheesan and others, argued that the transfer was nothing but retaliation for the minister’s outburst. He pointed out that he had an unblemished record since joining the corporation in 2016 and that carrying water bottles on a long, hot route could hardly be seen as misconduct.
Court’s Observations
Justice Nagaresh took a firm view against the manner in which KSRTC handled the matter. “An employee cannot be transferred on the ground of any allegation of misconduct unless disciplinary rules provide for such transfer as a mode of punishment,” the judge remarked.
The court noted that while KSRTC cited “administrative convenience” in its memo, it failed to show any actual administrative necessity for the transfer. “The so-called administrative convenience is not discernible either from the order or from the counter affidavit,” the judge observed.
The bench also pointed out that under Clause 11 of the Transfer Guidelines attached to the 2012 Pay Revision Agreement, a transfer linked to disciplinary issues must clearly state the reason in the order. In Jaimon’s case, no such reason was mentioned.
“The absence of any justifiable reason makes this transfer a colourable exercise of power,” Justice Nagaresh said, invoking the doctrine of “malice in law,” which means an order made for an improper purpose under the guise of authority.
Decision
Finding the transfer “punitive” and “malicious in law,” the High Court quashed both the transfer and relieving orders (Exhibits P1 and P2). The court directed KSRTC to reinstate Jaimon Joseph at the Ponkunnam Unit.
At the same time, the judge clarified that the order would not prevent KSRTC from initiating proper disciplinary proceedings if there was any genuine ground to do so.
With that, the bench disposed of the writ petition, leaving a clear message: transfers cannot be used as hidden punishment.
Case Title: Jaimon Joseph v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 37736 of 2025
Petitioner: Jaimon Joseph, Driver, KSRTC Ponkunnam Depot, Kottayam
Respondents: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and Officials
Date of Judgment: 16 October 2025
