By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the transfer order dated 29.6.2020 passed by respondent no.3 namely the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, North Central Railway, Allahabad. The petitioner is posted as Inspector in C.R.P.F. The challenge to the transfer order is on the ground that it is preceded by an anonymous complaint which makes the transfer order punitive. Second ground is that the petitioner being 58 years of age is about to retire within one year and as per the guidelines framed by the Railway Board with respect to transfer of members of the Force, (in exercise of powers under Rule 28 of the RPF rules 1987 read with Section 8 of the RPF Act 1957), last posting of a member of the Force may be given near their home town.
Submission is that while passing the transfer order, the said guidelines/Directive 32.12 had not been followed.
In the writ petition, it is brought on record that on a complaint received in the office of the Deputy Commandant Accounts, Vigilance inquiry was conducted. The petitioner along with three other persons who were posted in R.P.F post, Jhansi were attached to different offices of C.R.P.F at Jhansi and Prayagraj. The petitioner was attached to the office of the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF Jhansi by an order dated 26.5.2020. All four persons were relieved from Jhansi Store to join at the place of attachment by the order dated 29.6.2020. The petitioner has later been prematurely transferred on administrative ground, in the light of decision of the Railway Board communicated vide letter dated 29.6.2020. The transfer impugned is from Jhansi Division to Agra Division on the post of Inspector. The guidelines placed by the counsel for the petitioner provides the procedure for premature transfer which is Directive 32.9, quoted as under:-
9. Premature Transfer:
(i) No enrolled member of the Force shall ordinarily be transferred from one station to another, unless he /she has been at the station for the normal prescribed tenure, except in administrative exigency.
(ii) Approval of CSC/RPF/RPSF will be required for pre-mature transfer of any enrolled member of the Force up to the rank of Sub-Inspector and of DG/RPF in case of premature transfer of Inspectors.
Clause 9.2 provides that in case of premature transfer of Inspectors, the approval of Director General/RPF (DG/RPF) has to be obtained. It further provides that premature transfer can be made in administrative exigency. In the fact situation of present case, the transfer order has been passed in view of the complaint of irregularities against the petitioner with four other persons in the Jhansi Store, wherein the petitioner was posted. It appears that in order to complete the inquiry impartially, they were attached to another office at Jhansi. However, after receipt of the letter of the Railway Board dated 29.6.2020, on administrative ground, the petitioner had been prematurely transferred from Jhansi Division to Agra Division.
Indisputably, the order of transfer is an administrative order which has been passed in accordance with the guidelines for transfer of members of the Force (RPF). No allegation of mala fide against the authority or the Board has been made or proved.
Reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.7308 of 2008 Somesh Tiwari vs Union of India and others decided on 16.12.2008 is of no benefit to the petitioner.
The malafide of respondent no.4 as pleaded is not established as transfer order was passed after approval of the Railway Board. The change of place of posting from Agra Division to Jhansi Division cannot be said to be harsh. The contention that the order of transfer is passed by way or in lieu of punishment is not acceptable. The prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of transfer could not be shown.
No good ground is made out to quash the transfer order.
However, lastly in view of the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation, the present petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the competent authority to transfer him at a place nearby his home town as per Directive no.32.12 (circular dated 28.12.2017), on the assertion that the petitioner is about to retire next year.
It is made clear that the liberty granted to the petitioner should not be taken as an observation of the Court on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Independent consideration shall be given by the competent authority.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Harshita