Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—The learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 6 November 2015 has interfered with an order dated 21 October 2014 by which the respondent who is a constable in the Railway Protection Force in the North Central Railway was transferred from the Diesel Loco Shed Jhansi Division to the Allahabad Division on administrative grounds.

2. In setting aside the order of transfer, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows:

“...Although the case of the respondents is that the order has been passed in administrative interest and not under the provisions of Rule 148(4) of the Rules, 1987 nevertheless the very heading of the order itself mentions “Petty Punishment” and in the transfer order also it is mentioned that the transfer is on account of the suspicious role of the petitioner in the cable theft in the Diesel Loco Shed, Jhansi. In this view of the matter the order of transfer cannot be said to have been passed merely in administrative interest but rather by way of “Petty Punishment”. Petty Punishment not being one of the penalties prescribed under Rule 148 of the Rules, 1987 such a penalty could not have been imposed against the petitioner.”

3. The second reason which has weighed with the learned Single Judge is that in the counter-affidavit which was filed by the appellants, it was “admitted” that the respondent was transferred on the administrative side when a complaint was made by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel) Jhansi. This, in the view of the learned Single Judge, would imply that the order is stigmatic since it accuses the respondent of being involved in the theft of cables and before such an observation could have been made, a disciplinary enquiry should have been held. The learned Single Judge has held that the order of transfer is, in fact, in the form of a “Petty Punishment” and since Rule 148 (4) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (Rules) does not contemplate a Petty Punishment by way of transfer, the order is contrary to law.

4. In order to bring clarity to the issue which arises in the special appeal, it would at the outset be necessary to extract the order of transfer which was issued by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel) Jhansi on 21 October 2014. The order reads as follows:

Þi=kad&ofj0ea0lq0vkq0@js0lq0c0@ LFkkuk&ih0,e0Vh0@>kalh@14 fn0&21-10-14

vkns'k la[;k&75@2014

eq[;ky; jsy lqj{kk cy] mRrj e/; jsy] bykgkckn ds QkslZ la[;k&145@2014 ,oa i=kad&bZ&34@js0lq0c0@byk0@14 fnukad 20-10-2014 ds vuqikyu esa Jh fo".kqdkUr iky] dkUla0@Mhty yksdks 'ksM] >kaWlh e.My dk LFkkukUrj.k rRdky izHkko ls iz'kklfud vk/kkj ij bykgkckn e.My esa fd;k tkrk gSA

g0v0

ofj0e.My lqj{kk vk;qDr

jsy lqj{kk cy] >kalh^^

5. Ex facie, the order of transfer does not purport to be an order of punishment nor has it been issued for the reason that the respondent was implicated in the case of theft. The order is plain and simple an order of transfer on administrative grounds. The respondent, admittedly, is in a service which is transferable being a constable in the Railway Protection Force.

6. What weighed with the learned Single Judge, however, was an “observation” made in the form of “Petty Punishment” on 21 October 2014. Again for the sake of clarity, we would quote the ‘observation’ hereinbelow:

“OBSERVATION

In terms of letter No. JHS. M. DSL. Con. Dated 13.10.14 by Sr. DME(D)JHS. “The role of Sri Vishnu Kant Pal has come out to be Suspicious (Cable theft case of Diesel Loco Shed).

Vide letter No. E/34/RPF/ALD/14 Dated 20.10.2014. CSC/RPF/NCR has transferred Sri Vishnu Kant Pal Constable Diesel Loco Shed from Jhansi Division to Allahabad Division.

Dated - 22.10.2014"

7. This observation notes that there was a letter of the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel) dated 13 October 2014 in which the role of the respondent in a case of cable theft at the Diesel Loco Shed was noted to be suspicious. The observation notes that thereafter on 20