JUDGMENT

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - Interference declined by the learned Single Judge in respect of Annexure P/1 order, effecting an inter-zonal transfer between two different Railway establishments is sought to be challenged in this appeal.

2. Heard Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the Railways.

3. The sequence of events reveals that the Appellant had joined the service as a 'Constable' in the Railway Protection Force ('RPF') and was subsequently promoted as 'Head Constable'. While serving in the South East Central Railway at BMY Charoda, Bhilai, an instance of theft of coal occured in the Petitioner's area on 23.10.2018, pursuant to which, he came to be suspended on 11.01.2019 as per Annexure P/2. It was the case of the Appellant/Petitioner that he was not connected with the theft and was not on duty on the relevant date. But in the domestic enquiry conducted by the Employer-Railways, the Appellant was found guilty and as per Annexure P/3 order dated 14.06.2019, punishment was imposed upon him, whereby two increments were cut with cumulative effect. As per another order passed on the same date, the suspension ordered as per Annexure P/2 was revoked and by virtue of yet another order passed on that day itself, the Appellant was 'transferred' to Nagpur Division, where he joined duty as borne by Annexure P/4. The grievance of the Appellant is with regard to the subsequent course and events, by virtue of which, his service came to be transferred from the South East Central Railway to the Southern Railway as per Annexure P/1 dated 27.06.2019, which was just within a couple of weeks after passing the earlier transfer order on 14.06.2019 as per Annexure P/4. This made the Appellant to feel aggrieved, who sought to challenge the same by filing writ petition before this Court, mainly raising a contention that the orde r under challenge having been passed by the 3rd Respondent- Director General Railway Protection Force, it was without authority and beyond jurisdiction. The Principal Chief Security Commissioner RPF, was stated as the competent authority, whereas the Director General of RPF was only the approving authority and hence it was beyond competence. Reliance was sought to be placed on the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 ('RPF Rules', for short), particularly Rule 91, which deals with inter-zonal transfers.

4. A case was also put up to the effect that the Petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of the Directive No.32, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P/6 dated 28.12.2017. By virtue of the nature of the post held by the Petitioner, it was contended that he was to have a tenure posting of 5 years and since he had not completed 5 years after posting in Nagpur Division as per Annexure P/4, it was liable to be interdicted. The Appellant/Petitioner further contended that he was entitled to have the benefit of retention at Nagpur because of the studies pursued by the ward of the Appellant who was in the 10th standard as revealed from Annexure P/7.

5. The prayers were opposed from the part of the Railways and after hearing both the sides, it was held by the learned Single Judge that no strong case had been made out by the Writ Petitioner calling for interference with the impugned order and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The operative portion of the said verdict; as contained in paragraph-6, reads as follows :

"6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record particularly the records enclosed along with the writ petition and the documents, which the learned counsel for the respondents has produced during the course of the day, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any malice against the petitioner on the part of the respondents. That it has also been revealed that the petitioner has been posted under the SEC Railway for a