When the above matter came up before this Court, it was urged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that I.A. No. 15089/2012; filed to vacate the interim order passed in the above writ petition, has to be heard. The contention of the learned counsel is that even as per Ext.R1(a), the petitioner had sought for being relieved after 4th November, 2012, which date obviously, is over and the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, contends that the Ext.P8 order, purportedly in compliance of Ext.P7 judgment, was issued only on 19/10/2012, purposefully to prevent the petitioner from approaching this Court; since the courts were closed for the whole of the week after that date. In addition it is also submitted that while Ext.P7 directed finalisation of Ext.P5 appeal by a speaking order in tune with the relevant provisions of law; Ext.P8 order is silent as to the relevant provisions and only project maintenance of discipline and achievement of organizational goals as the reasons for rejecting the appeal. The learned counsel points out Ext.P12, Standing Order No. 29/2001, which draws a distinction between service in field units and static formation. Though the tenure in a static formation could be only for a maximum of three years with a further extension of one year in exemptional cases, it is pointed out that the periodicity of the static postings has also been stipulated in clause 4. As per clause 4, any Officer could expect a static posting within the first twelve years and the second posting in another ten years. The petitioner, who has completed twenty years of service in the Central Reserve Police Force (“C R P F” for short) was for the first time posted in a static formation. He joined in 25/09/2010 and was transferred on 09/05/2012. It is the submission of the petitioner that the reason for his transfer, though not evident in Ext.P5 order, is only by reason of his trying to put the house in order and due to organizational dis-agreement with his Superior Officer. The petitioner would also state that the request made, for the relieving order to be kept in abeyance was only since he had been handling the finances of the unit as the second-in- Command and hence, required time, to handover charge. It is not to say that, he had agreed or undertaken to be relieved after 4th November, 2012.
3. This Court had by Ext.P5 directed that the petitioner shall be retained in the present post and that the appeal filed by him shall be considered and a speaking order passed. On a reading of Ext.P8, the appeal is seen rejected for reason of maintenance of discipline of Force and to achieve organizational goals. Organizational goals necessarily has to be decided by the concerned authority. But when there is a specific direction to pass a speaking order, it was incumbent upon the authority to state atleast briefly how the transfer of the petitioner would advance the organizational need. Further reason cited viz., maintenance of discipline is vague on the face of it. It can only be taken as the Appellate Authority having found that, the maintenance of discipline required that the petitioner should comply with the transfer order without much ado. That view cannot be countenanced. When a higher authority has been directed by this Court to consider and finalise an appeal with respect to the sustainability of the transfer order; the Appellate Authority cannot merely reject it citing the reason of discipline. That would render nugatory an appellate remedy.
4. If the transfer itself is by reason of any breach of discipline by the petitioner, then again such instances should have been specified in the order. Though submissions are made across the bar regarding enquiries into the conduct of the petitioner, there is no pleading to that effect in the affidavit filed in support of the application to vacate the interim order. The said affidavit dated 8/11/2012, in fact details the conduct of the petitioner after Ext.P8 order was passed and alleges deliberate actions on the part of the petitioner to somehow evade service of the order of transfer.
5. The respondent by the affidavit also seeks to substitute Ext.P5 and P8 orders by stating that the transfer order is one issued in public interest. The assertion in the affidavit is that the retention of the petitioner would cause irreparable injury and hardship and lower the discipline and morale of the troops in the unit. It is not clear as to what irreparable injury and hardship would be caused and how the discipline and morale of the troops would be lowered by retaining the petitioner in the said post. At the risk of repetition, it has to be noticed again, that, there is no allegations against the petitioner for breach of discipline or for conduct unbecoming of a member of the Force. In the above circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that the interim order granted in the writ petition has to be vacated. It is pertinent that, the respondent has not chosen to file a counter affidavit till date. The affidavit filed in support of the application for vacating the order of stay, falls short of providing any satisfactory explanation or cogent material, so to do. The interlocutory application filed to vacate the interim order dated 12/10/2012 is hereby dismissed. The Interim Order is made absolute, subject however to the result of the writ petition. It is for the respondents to file a counter affidavit and seek immediate disposal of the writ petition. Ordered accordingly.
LSN K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE