Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. ASHA, J.
S. SURESH - PETITIONERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W.P(C) No.29239 of 2016-D
Decided On : 20-03-2017
Transfer - Railway Protection Force - RPF Act, 1957, Rules 90-93.10 - The court discussed the statutory rules governing the transfer of members of the Railway Protection Force, emphasizing Rule 90 which provides for transfer in exigencies of service or for administrative reasons. The court highlighted the provisions of Rules 91 to 93.10, which regulate inter zonal transfers, periodical transfers, and tenure of posting for members of the Force. The court found that the transfer of the petitioner, who was facing departmental action and criminal proceedings, violated Rule 93.9, which prohibits transfer of members facing disciplinary proceedings, and Rule 93.2, which restricts transfers before completion of the normal tenure prescribed for a station. The court also noted that the transfer was ordered without stating any reason and was punitive in nature, contrary to the statutory rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, challenged his transfer from Chengannur to Tiruchirapilly, contending that it was contrary to statutory rules and punitive. The petitioner had faced criminal and departmental proceedings, and the transfer was ordered without stating any reason, affecting his ability to defend himself in the ongoing cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was actuated by malafides, violated statutory rules, and was punitive in nature. The court held that the transfer of a member facing departmental and criminal proceedings was in violation of Rule 93.9, which prohibits such transfers, and Rule 93.2, which restricts premature transfers. The court also noted that the transfer was ordered without stating any reason, further supporting the contention that it was punitive.
Issues: The issues before the court included the legality of the petitioner's transfer, the violation of statutory rules governing transfers, and the punitive nature of the transfer, especially considering the ongoing criminal and departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of statutory rules, particularly Rule 93.9 prohibiting transfers of members facing disciplinary proceedings, and Rule 93.2 restricting premature transfers. The court also emphasized that the transfer was ordered without stating any reason, indicating its punitive nature. The court's decision was further supported by the finding that the transfer was actuated by malafides.
Final Decision: The court set aside the transfer order, allowing the petitioner's writ petition.
The petitioner, who is a Constable in the Railway Protection Force is challenging his transfer ordered as per Ext.P1 on 8.8.2016 from Chengannur to Tiruchirapilly.
2. The petitioner joined Railway Protection Special Force on 12.09.2005. His first posting was in West Bengal. In 2008 he was transferred to Thirichirappally. In the year 2013 he was transferred from RPSF to RPF, on the basis of his request and he was posted to Chennai. While working there, he requested for a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram division pointing out that he has to look after his mentally retarded sister aged 26, having 62% permanent disability. Based on his request, he was granted out of turn transfer to Thiruvananthapuram division and he joined there on 6.8.2015. According to the petitioner, the officials working in Thiruvananthapuram division were not happy with his out of turn transfer and they were cooking up various allegations as a result of which 2 FIRs were lodged against him, in the Railway Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram on 31.08.2015 and 03.09.2015. Consequently, he had to remain in judicial custody for the period from 1.9.2015 to 26.10.2015. A memo of charge was issued on 29.09.2015 covering the very same allegations as in the criminal complaint and the respondents commenced enquiry even by conducting the first sitting when the petitioner was in judicial custody. In the meanwhile, he was shifted to Chengannur and he was directed to sign the register at the Headquarters at Kottayam twice daily on all days including holidays. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Section 9(1)(i) of RPF Act, 1957 as per Ext.P8 order dated 1.09.2015, consequent to the investigation now pending against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he challenged the departmental proceedings in W.P(c).No.36523 of 2015, in which this court has stayed the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner filed W.P(c).No.9323 of 2016 challenging the suspension, since the respondents were not taking any action to review the order. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request for review as per judgment dated 3.6.2016. Thereafter, the 6th respondent issued Ext.P10 order dated 28.06.2016 revoking the suspension and he was posted at Chengannur. But immediately he was relieved to Thiruchirappally in order to undergo belly reduction course. When he joined back after the training, the petitioner was relieved to Vijayawada on 8.8.2016 for bundobust duty in connection with Krishna Pushkaram- 2016. Petitioner, submits that bundobust duty was over on 26.8.2016 and he arrived at Chengannur on 26.8.2016. But since he was sick, he was admitted in the railway hospital at Thiruvananthapuram from where he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, when he contacted the control room in order to report about the sickness and his requirement of medical leave, he was informed that he was already relieved from Chengannur RPF outpost by a GD entry. It was under the above circumstance that he came to know about Ext.P1 order of transfer which was passed on 8.8.2016 subsequent to which he was sent for duty to Vijayawada. This writ petition was filed at that stage pointing out that the order of transfer is contrary to the statutory rules; his mentally retarded sister was admitted in the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre for Handicapped, Thiruvananthapuram and therefore his presence was necessary in Thiruvananthapuram division and that transfer was punitive.
3. According to the petitioner, the order of transfer is actuated by malafides. Apart from that, it is in violation of Rules 93-93.10, Railway Protection Force Rules. According to the petitioner, no member of the Force shall be transferred from one station before the normal prescribed tenure as per Rule 93.2 of the RPF Rules. As per Rule 93.1 it is for the Director General to prescribe a tenure of posting for various ranks in vari
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
