Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the Judgment? :No

Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced ? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(CAV)

Heard Mr. Somanath Maharana, petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC representing the respondents.

2. The petitioner-in-person, who was serving as Commandant and posted in 142 BN CRPF, Golaghat, Assam, has challenged the Transfer Order dated 10.01.2025 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF (respondent No. 2), by which he was transferred and posted to South Zone situated at Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad (T.S.) 500005 before completion of his normal tenure of 3 (three) years.

3. The petitioner contended that as per Standing Order No. 07/2014 dated 24.11.2014, the normal tenure from Assistant Commandant to DIG would be 3 (three) years. However, the petitioner, having joined the present place of posting at Golaghat, Assam on 28.03.2023, had not completed the said tenure of 3 (three) years. The petitioner submits that the impugned Transfer Order dated 10.01.2025 has been issued before completion of 3 (three) years tenure and without assigning any reason; as such, it has been issued in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned CGC for the respondents submits that Standing Order No. 07/2014 dated 24.11.2014 has been superseded by subsequent Standing Order No. 5/22 dated 27.09.2022, whereby, at Para 3 (c), it provides that “if it is found that an officer needs to be transferred before completion of normal tenure due to administrative or operational requirements, his case will be forwarded to the Directorate with reasons,” and Para No. 5(b) of the said Standing Order stipulates that, “As CRPF is a Central Armed Police Force of the Government of India constituted under a Special Act and is tasked with important operational duties regarding maintenance of the security of the nation, therefore, there are certain operational and administrative requirements of the Force. In view of such requirements, any officer may be posted to any Unit or office at any point of time”. The respondent further contends that it does not create any right for any officer for posting to a particular place or for a particular tenure, as mentioned in Para 5(a), and the transfer of the petitioner has been issued under the provisions of Para Nos. 3 (c) and 5(b) of Standing Order 5/22 on administrative as well as operational requirements of the force. Further, it is submitted that no officer has any vested right to remain posted at a particular place and transfer can be effected at any time depending upon administrative requirements. In support of his submission, the learned CGC place reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of J. K. Bansal (Major General) vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 227, wherein, in paragraph-12 of the said judgment it has been held that

“It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made”.

5. The respondent has further contended that, on the basis of certain complaints, a discreet inquiry was conducted against the petitioner wherein allegations of misuse of official position and conduct affecting the discipline of the battalion have been made against the petitioner.

6. However, the petitioner, by way of filing a rejoinder, has denied all allegations made against him and has placed on record a report of the preliminary investigation findings, wherein, it is