Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Sunil Kumar S/O Shri Hoshiyar Singh vs Senior Divisional Security … on 6 January, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:52261]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15598/2022
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Hoshiyar Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Kankreu Kala, Thana Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection
Force, Jaipur.
2. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force
(R.p.f.), North-Western Railway, Jaipur.
3. Chief Security Commissioner, NWR RPF, Jaipur.
4. Union of India through Ministry of Railways, New Delhi -
110001.
5. The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway
Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi - 1.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
Reserved on: 10/12/2024
Pronounced on: 6/01/2025
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:
“a) Order bearing no.36/2022 dated 13.10.2022
(Annexure – 4) transferring the petitioner from North
Western Railway Zone posted at Kanakpura outpost,
Jaipur Post, Jaipur Division to Southern Railway may
kindly be quashed and set aside;
b) Any other order or direction in connection with or
consequent to the impugned order dated 13.10.2022
(Annexure – 4) issued by respondents during
pendency of this writ petition may also be quashed
and set aside.”
2. The factual matrix of the instant case is as follows:
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:51:21 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52261] (2 of 7) [CW-15598/2022]
2.1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-
Inspector in Railway Protection Force (RPF) in the year 2010 and
is presently holding the said post as a substantive employee.
2.2. The petitioner vide order dated 24.11.2017 was
transferred from Northern-Eastern Zone (Original Cadre) to
Northern-Western Zone on account of his personal reasons. Due to
said inter-zonal transfer the petitioner had to compromise with his
seniority.
2.3. On 12.01.2022 an FIR bearing No.08/2022 was
registered against the petitioner qua Anti Corruption Bureau
(ACB), Jaipur under the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’).
2.4. On 04.03.2022, charge-sheet bearing No.63/2022 was
filed in the aforesaid criminal matter qua which trial is pending.
Moreover, departmental proceedings on the same set of charges
were also started. Subsequently, on 23.03.2022, the aforesaid
departmental proceedings were stayed by the Court.
2.5. Consequently, vide order dated 13.10.2022 the
suspension order of the petitioner was revoked and petitioner was
directed to report back on duty. Thereafter, vide transfer order
dated 13.10.2022 numbering 36/2022 the petitioner was
transferred from the North Western Railway Zone (Kanakpura
Outpost Jaipur) to Southern Railway.
3. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner had
submitted that the said transfer order suffers from malafides as
the same is against the transfer policy sans jurisdiction.
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:51:21 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52261] (3 of 7) [CW-15598/2022]
4. It was further submitted that Divisional Security
Commissioner had no jurisdiction and authority to pass such
orders. Moreover, copy of the said transfer order was not supplied
to the petitioner.
5. Furthermore, it was submitted that the said transfer
order resulted in the loss of seniority qua the said post.
6. Additionally, it was submitted that the said transfer
order was not the outcome of administrative exigencies. It was
further submitted that the petitioners’ wife is working in the
Government School and their two daughters are studying in a
primary school. Therefore, the said transfer which is sought on
personal grounds is against the transfer policy of the Railway
Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short ‘the Rules of 1987’), more
particularly, Rules 90, 93.9, 99 and 153.4, and against the
direction dated 18.09.2014 as well as office memo dated
02.02.2010, which categorically provides that on account of
personal family reasons the working couple (spouse policy) should
be posted at the same/nearest station(Annexure-7).
7. Further, it was submitted that to ensure petitioners’
presence for trial in ongoing criminal proceedings, their posting
should remain unchanged. To substantiate the above said
contentions, reliance was placed upon the dictum encapsulated in
Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR
2009 SC 1399 and S. Suresh Vs.Union of India & Ors.
registered as Writ Petition (C) No.29239/2016.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had
stoutly opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:51:21 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52261] (4 of 7) [CW-15598/2022]
the petitioners and had prayed for dismissal of the present petition
on the following grounds:-
8.1. That the Divisional Security Commissioner acted under
the directions of Principal Chief Division Security Commissioner,
who is competent authority to transfer any employee from one
Railway Zone to another Zone in R.P.F, therefore in light of the
said delegated duties, the Divisional Security Commissioner was a
competent authority to make the said transfer.
8.2. Reliance was placed upon the order dated 13.10.2022
(Annexure – R/1) and letter/order No.3/66 dated 13.10.2022
(Annexure – R/2).
8.3. Furthermore, it was submitted that track record of the
petitioner was under scrutiny and there were allegation of
accepting illicit payments to the tune of Rs.5000/- against the
petitioner.
8.4. It was further submitted that on account of the above
said allegations the petitioner was arrested on 10.01.2022,
therefore if the petitioner resides at Jaipur or any other place, the
petitioner might tamper with the evidences and influence the
witnesses.
9. Further, it was submitted that according to the policy of
Railways and the Rules of 1987, public interest is supreme,
therefore considering the administrative exigencies the said
transfer of the petitioner was made effective by the competent
authority.
10. Lastly, whilst placing reliance upon the dictum
encapsulated in the judgments titled as State of U.P. & Ors. Vs.
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:51:21 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52261] (5 of 7) [CW-15598/2022]Gordhan Lal reported in 2004(11) SCC 42 and Union of India
Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in 1993(4) SCC 357, it was submitted
that the transfer of an employee is an incidence of service and
Court cannot interfere in the transfer order unless the same is
vitiated by malafide.
11. Heard and considered.
12. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, upon assiduously scanning the records this
Court has made the following observations:-
12.1 That the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-
Inspector in the year 2010 at Northern-Eastern Zone and on
account of personal reasons, the petitioner made a request for the
transfer, thereafter petitioner was transferred on Inter-Zone basis
on 24.11.2017.
12.2 That on 12.01.2022 allegations qua corruption were
levelled against the petitioner and for the same an FIR
No.08/2022 was registered qua A.C.B under the provisions of
Section 7 of the Act of 1988 qua which charge sheet was filed and
departmental proceedings were initiated, however the same were
stayed by the Court vide order dated 23.03.2022.
12.3. It is noted that the suspension order of the petitioner
was also revoked vide order dated 13.10.2022 and petitioner was
directed to report on duty.
12.4. It is further noted that the petitioner was transferred
from North Western Railway Zone to Southern Railway, by the
impugned transfer order dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure – 4).
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:51:21 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52261] (6 of 7) [CW-15598/2022]
12.5. Upon perusal of the Rules of 1987, more particularly,
Rule 93, it is analyzed that to effect transfer of the employee,
specific approval of competent authority i.e., Principal Chief
Security Commissioner is required, and the said requirement is
fulfilled by the respondents in the present case.
12.6 That as per Rule 93.9 of the Rules of 1987, which
states that if any members of Force are facing departmental
proceedings and transfer qua the same is due, then in the public
interest and qua expeditious finalization of disciplinary
proceedings transfer can be made.
12.7 That according to the settled position of law, as referred
by learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Gordhan
Lal (supra) and S.L. Abbas (supra), wherein it is opined that
the Court cannot interfere with the transfer orders unless the
same is made malafidely, illegally and is dehors the policy or law.
Therefore, relying upon the said judgments and the ratio spelled
out therein, it is analyzed that considering the public interest,
administrative exigency and in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the said transfer was carried out after revoking the
suspension order and after analyzing the case and allegations
levelled under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Moreover, it is analysed that petitioner was permitted inter-zonal
transfer earlier in the year 2017 on account of personal reasons.
12.8. It is further analyzed that disciplinary proceedings are
stayed by the Court and the said order may remain in effect for an
extended period. Therefore, administrative exigencies cannot be
overlooked for such a prolonged duration.
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:51:21 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:52261] (7 of 7) [CW-15598/2022]
12.9 That the judgments cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner are based on distinct factual matrix and circumstances
as that of present case i.e. when the case under the Act of 1988 is
ongoing against the litigant, therefore the same are
distinguishable.
12.10. It is further noted that the petitioner had availed the
interim relief passed by the Court vide order dated 14.12.2022
wherein, transfer order and relieving order of the petitioner were
stayed till 25.01.2023 and thereafter significant amount of time
has elapsed.
13. In light of the aforestated facts and circumstances this
Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated
13.10.2022 and deems it apposite to dismiss the present petition.
14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stands disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:51:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)