Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
S SURESH – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 29239/2016
Transfer - Railway Protection Force - Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, RPF Rules - Summary: The court analyzed the statutory rules governing transfers, highlighting the need for compliance with specific provisions that prohibit transfers during ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The court determined that the petitioner's transfer was punitive and violated both the RPF Rules and the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
A constable in the Railway Protection Force challenged a transfer order following a series of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against him. He argued that the transfer was contrary to statutory rules as it occurred while he faced disciplinary action and was necessary to care for his disabled sister.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer violated the Railway Protection Force Rules, particularly those restricting transfers during pending disciplinary matters. The absence of stated reasons in the transfer order suggested malice, making it punitive rather than administrative.
Issues: Whether the transfer of the constable was permissible under the Railway Protection Force Rules, especially in light of pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfers cannot be utilized as a punitive measure and must comply with statutory provisions that explicitly guide the circumstances under which they may occur, particularly when disciplinary actions are pending.
Final Decision: The transfer order was set aside and the writ petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT
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
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
