Raj Kumar Singh vs Union of India & ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (21 Jul 2020)

Guidelines cannot be read as mandatory Rules to be adhered to in all circumstances or to take away all discretionary powers of transfer from the competent authorities

MANU/DE/1407/2020

Service

Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is employed as a Sub-Inspector in CISF, presently at NLC, Barsingsar, Bikaner, for issuance of appropriate Writ, Rule, Order or Direction quashing/setting aside the transfer letter and Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner and as against Respondents.

The posting order has been challenged on the ground that, it was vindictive as the Petitioner had filed Writ Petition in the High Court praying for a direction to the Respondents to pay Transportation Allowance (TPTA) which was pending and in which the Court had issued notice after which the respondents had started harassing and pressurizing the Petitioner to withdraw it. The transfer was clearly malafide and liable to be set aside.

No doubt, the ‘Guidelines for Posting/Transfer of CISF Personnel’ being Circular No.22 of 2017 dated 25th September, 2017, recommends the tenure of posting in a Unit/Station of three years. But these are only guidelines intended to “serve as broad parameters for posting the personnel” and the final decision to transfer them have been left even under this circular to the discretion of the competent authorities of the CISF. They would be best placed to determine operational and/or administrative necessities of the Force so that personnel can be optimally deployed. The ‘Guidelines’ cannot be read as ‘mandatory Rules’ to be adhered to in all circumstances or held to take away all discretionary powers of transfer from the competent authorities.

The Petitioner has no vested right to continue to remain at Barsingsar till he completes three years, having been posted there in 2018. In fact, the posting details of the Petitioner reflects this fact that it is not mandatory that the person has to remain at a station for three years before he is transferred out.

There is sufficient administrative reason for justifying the transfer of the Petitioner from NLC, Barsingsar to NTPC, Tapovan. Annexure R-5 to the counter-affidavit records multiple times that the petitioner was counselled by the Asst. Commandant for his misbehaviour and indiscipline at NLC, Barsingsar.

The Petitioner belongs to a disciplined Force and is expected to conduct himself in an appropriate manner at all times. The history of the petitioner reflects his belligerent and temperamental attitude towards others. The Petitioner has repeatedly faced adverse remarks and penalties on account of his indiscipline and bad behaviour. It is clear that the authorities in the Force are entitled to take such administrative action as are required to remove such negative influences and to enhance the discipline and the spirit of personnel in the camp. One person cannot be seen to be repeatedly getting away with conduct that is not conducive either to the discharge of duties or to the peaceful residential environment of the camp. Seen from this angle too, the transfer order seems justified.

The Petitioner has failed to establish mala fides or discrimination in his transfer from NLC, Barsingsar to NTPC, Tapovan. The petitioner has failed to establish any ground for quashing the transfer order. The petition lacks in merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Tags : DISCRETIONARY POWERS TRANSFER LEGALITY