Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Mad) 3340

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
T. Pitchai - Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commandant/Adm & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.21342 of 2005 & 21343 of 2005, 13143 of 2006, 17573 of 2006, 19671 of 2006, 19363 of 2006, 23947 of 2006, 17634 of 2006 & 13178 of 2006 and WVMP Nos.2535 of 2005 & 2536 of 2005
Decided On : 06 December 2006

Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:M. Md. Ibrahim Ali, Advocate. For the Respondents:A.S. Vijayaraghavan, P. Chandrasekaran Advocate, Mr. Patty B. Jeganathan, SCGSC, B.Shanthakumar, SCGSC., Devadoss, ACGSC.,

The main legal point established is that transfer orders under the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 must be passed by the competent authority as provided under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and are subject to administrative/operational needs and public interest.

Headnote:
Transfer - Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 - Rule 72 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 - Circular No.18 of 2004 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and Circular No.18 of 2004. It highlights the authority for passing transfer orders, the guidelines for transfers, and the conditions subject to which the guidelines are to be followed.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged transfer orders under the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. The court considered the authority for passing transfer orders, the guidelines for transfers, and the conditions subject to which the guidelines are to be followed.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer orders were passed by the competent authority as provided under Rule 72 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, and communicated by the respective Regional Officers. It also found that the guidelines for transfers were subject to various conditions, including administrative/operational needs and public interest.
Issues: The issues involved the authority for passing transfer orders, adherence to guidelines for transfers, and the consideration of representations by the authorities concerned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer orders were passed by the competent authority and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. It also emphasized that the guidelines for transfers were subject to administrative/operational needs and public interest.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions, finding no merit in the challenges to the transfer orders.

Judgment :-

(Writ Petition Nos.21342 & 21343 of 2005 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order No.E-38014/IUT-2005/CISF/CHPT/2005/3438 dated 16.04.2005 passed by the first respondent, quash the same in so far as item Nos.25 and 16 are concerned and direct the respondents to retain the petitioners in any one of the units at Chennai.

Writ Petition Nos.13143, 13178 and 17573 of 2006 are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order No.E-38014/5NZ POSTING/IZT/2006/2444, Service order No.31/2006 dated 31.3.2006 issued by the second respondent and the order passed by the third respondent in his service order No.76/2006 in No.E-38014/(1)/11(23)/06/Estt.II-638 dated 28.02.2006, quash the same in so far as item Nos.121, 60 and 125 are concerned and direct the respondents to retain the petitioner for three years at Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

Writ Petition No.19671 of 2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order Nos.E-38015/IUT/E2(SZ)/2006/2567 dated 31.05.2006 passed by the third respondent, quash the same in so far as item No.99 is concerned.

Writ Petition No. 19363 of 2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order No.E-38015/Estt.II/23rd IZT/CHPT/2006 dated 08.04.2006 issued by the first respondent, quash the same in so far as item No.48 is concerned and to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner at Chennai Port Trust, Chennai till his superannuation.

Writ Petition No.23947 of 2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order No.E-38014I/14/2000/CC/RPS/Estt.II/06/2541 dated 14.07.2006 passed by the third respondent, quash the same and to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner for three years at Chennai Port Trust, Chennai.

Writ Petition No.17634 of 2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order No.E-38014/5NZ OSTING/IZT/2006/2444, Service order No.31/2006 dated 31.3.2006 issued by the second respondent and the order passed by the third respondent in his service order No.76/2006 in No.E-38014/(1)/11(23)/06/Estt.II-638 dated 28.02.2006, quash the same in so far as item Nos.1180 is concerned.)

COMMON ORDER P. SATHASIVAM, J.

Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same and common, the writ petitions are being disposed of by the following common order.

2. Inasmuch as the petitioners have challenged the orders of transfer from one place to another, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer to the entire factual matrix as stated in the affidavits and the counter affidavits.

3. After taking us through the impugned proceedings, the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, The Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 and the Circular No.18 of 2004 (Guidelines) dated 20.11.2004 issued by the Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "CISF"), New Delhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions :

(i) All the impugned orders were passed by the Assistant Inspector General, CISF, who is not the competent authority to pass such orders and on this ground, all the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with;

(ii) In view of the various terms and conditions in Circular No.18/2004 issued by the Directorate General, CISF and inasmuch as the same were not either considered or followed while passing the orders of transfer, the same are liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document