The court upheld the authority's discretion in transfer decisions, emphasizing the need for demonstrating arbitrariness for judicial intervention in military postings.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Pertinently, this is second round of litigation by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner in the first round of litigation being W.P.(C) No. 14736/22 had sought quashing of the signals dated 15.09.2022 and 21.09.2022 and movement order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the respondents. In the first round of litigation and this Court vide decision dated 18.10.2022 had directed the competent authority of respondents to decide petitioner's representation dated 21.09.2022 within two weeks.

2. Aggrieved against the decision dated 25.10.2022 passed by the respondents apropos thereto, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the said order dated 25.10.2022; signals dated 15.09.2022 and 21.09.2022 and movement order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the respondents. In addition, direction is also sought to respondents to either permit petitioner to complete his four years tenure at OPS Directorate, FHQ, New Delhi or to post him to any other Directorate/Establishment in Delhi to enable him to complete remainder of his three years' tenure.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that Rule 5 of Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000 prescribed that the tenure of members of the Force belonging to the ministerial cadre shall be four years and petitioner was posted at FHQ, New Delhi only in September, 2021. Also submitted that petitioner has remained posted at Meghalaya Frontier for nearly 7 years out of his service tenure of 15 years and respondents have arbitrarily rejected petitioner's request to continue posting at FHQ, New Delhi. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been transferred from OPS Directorate, FHQ, New Delhi without affording an opportunity of hearing and that the information inadvertently disclosed by the petitioner was very much available in the public domain. Learned counsel next submitted that against the Show Cause Notice, petitioner has already been issued a warning and for the same action of petitioner, he cannot be given two punishments.

4. It has been also submitted that impugned transfer order posting him from FHQ, New Delhi to Meghalya Ftr would lead to uprooting his entire family and he will not be able to render any kind of assistance to his wife and old aged parents.

5. The factual background of the present petition is that the petitioner, who is working as Sub-Inspr (Min) and posted with Ops Dte, FHQ BSF, has remained posted and served in North East Regions for more than eight years i.e. 15.10.2009 till 29.06.2018. Vide Signal No. R/3129 dated 22.06.2021, he was directed to join his present place of posting at FHQ, New Delhi, which he had joined on 18.09.2021. However, pursuant to a Court of Inquiry, a Show Cause Notice dated 08.09.2022 was issued to him, to which he filed a reply dated 12.09.2022 regretting his mistakes with an undertaking not to repeat the same. Thereafter, vide Pers Dte (Staff Section) FHQ Signal No. R/3127 dated 19.09.022, he was transferred to Meghalya Ftr. Vide letter bearing No. No.1112/COI/Adm/Ops/2022/21053-54 dated 20.09.2022, the competent authority informed the petitioner that the reply furnished by him to the above said Show Cause Notice was not satisfactory and for his egregious negligence, he was issued a warning to be careful in future. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 21.09.2022 to the respondent with the following prayers:

"5. Sir, I have been posted to. Meghalaya Frontier for further adjustment vide Pers