Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Manipur) 83

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
L. Imocha Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 674 of 2020
Decided On : 28-10-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. M. Devananda, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, Sr. PCCG, for the Respondents

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons, with proper justification and grounds provided by the authorities, should not be interfered with unless there is a violation of mandatory statutory rules or malafide. The court emphasized the authority's discretion in transfer decisions and the lack of a vested right for a government servant to remain posted at a particular place.

Headnote:
Transfer - Central Reserve Police Force - Standing Order dated 07/2015 - Para 4(vii), (ix), (viii), (xvi) - 109 Bn, 143 Bn, 162 Bn - The court discussed the provisions of the Standing Order dated 07/2015, specifically Para 4(vii), (ix), (viii), (xvi) and their application to the petitioner's transfer and posting. The court highlighted the requirement for personnel to serve in a Zone other than their Home Zone for a period of 14 years, the maximum tenure in a particular Sector/Zone, and the provision for serving in other theatres before induction in the choice/home theatre. The court also emphasized the public interest and administrative reasons for transfer orders, and the need for proper justification and grounds for transfers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Central Reserve Police Force personnel, challenged transfer orders and sought to complete his tenure in 109 Bn under the Central Zone. The petitioner's transfer from 87 Bn to 162 Bn was contested, and the petitioner filed a writ petition after being transferred to 109 Bn for one year.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had enjoyed the benefits of the transfer order to 109 Bn for one year and only challenged it after the completion of the one-year period, indicating lack of clean hands. The court also noted that the transfer orders were made in public interest and for administrative reasons, with proper justification and grounds provided by the respondent authorities.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's transfer and posting, the application of the Standing Order provisions, the completion of zonal tenure, and the public interest and administrative reasons for the transfer orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's challenge to the transfer orders lacked merit, emphasizing the lack of clean hands in challenging the transfer to 109 Bn after enjoying its benefits. The court also highlighted the public interest and administrative justifications for the transfer orders, emphasizing the authority's discretion in transfer decisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions. The petitioner was directed to report to 162 Bn after the completion of the one-year tenure at 109 Bn.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the Signal bearing No.T.IX-46(SCT)/2019-CZ-ADM-1, dated 13.2.2019, the Signal bearing No.T-IX-1(SCT)/2019-CS-Adm-1, dated 28.2.2019 in respect of the petitioner and the impugned order bearing No.T-IX-1(SCT)/2019-CS-Adm-1, dated 7.6.2019 and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete his tenure in 109 Bn under the Central Zone in view of Para No.4(vii) and (ix) of the Standing Order dated 07/2015.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was presently posted to 87 Bn CRPF at Jiribam and attached to the Composite Hospital, CRPF at Imphal and has been performing his duties when the respondent authorities issued the Signal dated 13.2.2019, thereby allotting Inter Zonal Transfer of 1039 personnel of various Zonal Units to Central Zone for further posting. Before issuance of the Signal dated 13.2.2019, the petitioner submitted his choice for posting at 109 Bn or 143 Bn, which was reflected in the Signal dated 13.2.2019. After issuance of the Signal dated 13.2.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.2.2019 to the Inspector of Police requesting for posting to 109 Bn on medical ground of his ailing wife. The said representation was not favourably considered and the petitioner was transferred and posted to 162 Bn at J & K vide the Signal dated 28.2.2019. Aggrieved by the Signal dated 28.2.2019, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.385 of 2019 for setting aside the Signals dated 13.2.2019 and 28.2.2019 respectively. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.5.2019, thereby directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 21.1.2019 and in the said writ petition it was ordered that till the representation is considered by the respondent authorities the Signal dated 28.2.2019 shall remain suspended in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with the impugned Signal dated 7.6.2019 accommodating him to 109 Bn for a period of one year but not allowing to complete his tenure as prescribed in Para No.4(viii) and (ix) of the Standing Order dated 07/2015 illegally and arbitrarily. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The Respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that while the petitioner was posted at 87 Bn, he was allotted on transfer to Central Zone on 31.1.2019 and subsequently, he was sub-allotted to Central Sector vide order dated 13.2.2019 for further posting. Accordingly, the petitioner has been transferred from 87 Bn to 162 Bn and that on being transferred to 162 Bn, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.385 of 2019. In consideration of the direction issued in the said writ petition and taking note of the illness of his wife, an order for transfer of the petitioner from 87 Bn to 109 Bn for one year on compassionate ground was issued vide order dated 7.6.2019. Accordingly, the petitioner reported duty at 109 Bn on 9.11.2019 and taken into strength of the Unit on the same date. But the petitioner has failed to comply with the later part of the same order wherein he has to be transferred out after completion of one year. Hence, the plea of the petitioner to stay in 109 Bn beyond his retention period i.e., one year after 8.11.2019 is against the provisions contained in the Standing Order dated 07/2015 and thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Heard Mr.K.Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, the learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

5. Assailing the impugned transfer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the Standing Order, a person can seve in a particular Range/Sector for maximum 10 years and in a particular Zone for 14 years and that it is compulsory for a NGO to serve in a Zone other than his Home Zone for a period of 14 years at least once in his full service. Thus, the petitioner has to serve under the North East Zone for a period