JUDGMENT Chattopadhyay, J. 1. INSTANT appeal arises out of the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the validity and the legality of the inter-divisional transfer order which was issued by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway under Force Order No. 171/2010 dated 22nd November, 2010 which was specifically mentioned in the subsequent order dated 25th November, 2010 by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Howrah-I. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and where under the said learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits. Assailing the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein. The appellant has also filed an application for stay in connection with the aforesaid appeal. We have heard both the appeal and the connected stay application in presence of the learned Counsel of both the parties. 2. THE learned Counsel representing the appellant/petitioner submitted that the inter-divisional transfer order was issued to the appellant/petitioner by the authority concerned by way of punishment and the same casts stigma on the appellant/petitioner herein. THE learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner submitted that the aforesaid punitive premature inter-divisional transfer order was issued to the appellant/petitioner without any show-cause notice or even granting any opportunity of hearing. By the aforesaid inter-divisional transfer order, appellant herein was transferred from Howrah Goods Shed Post, Howrah-I Division to Chittaranjan Locomotives Works, Chittaranjan Division before completion of the prescribed five years tenure. It is not in dispute that on or about 6th September, 2009, the appellant/petitioner herein was asked to join the aforesaid Howrah Goods Shed Post under Howrah-I Division. At the time of issuance of the impugned transfer order, the appellant/petitioner herein was temporarily attached to Railway Protection Force/Train Escort Company. The competent authority did not bring the appellant/petitioner back to his parent post at Howrah Goods Shed Post under Howrah-I Division before issuing the transfer order. 3. FROM the records we also find that the Senior Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway brought certain serious allegations against the appellant/petitioner by his written communication dated 7th October, 2010 addressed to the I. G.-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway. 4. 3. FROM the records we also find that the Senior Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway brought certain serious allegations against the appellant/petitioner by his written communication dated 7th October, 2010 addressed to the I. G.-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway. 4. IN the aforesaid written communication, Senior Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway specifically alleged that the appellant/petitioner herein due to his long tenure in and around Kolkata area has developed unethical and unwanted relations with criminals and receivers and has also been indulging in extortion of money and other corrupt practice. The said confidential written communication of the Senior Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway dated 7th October, 2010 is set out hereunder:? EASTERN RAILWAY Confidential No. HWH - (l)/Transfer and Deputation/2010 Howrah, dated 07.10.2010 IG-cum-CSC/RPF, E. Rly./Kolkata. Sub:- Temporary attachment of Sl/T. Giri of HWG post/ HWH (1) to TE-Coy/Howrah. Ref:- Your good office letter No. SC. 30/33-E/TR/ASN/09 dated 22.09.2010 Reference above, intelligence report indicates that Sl/T. Giri of HWG Post now at TE-Coy/Howrah (I) was involved in collecting money from following sources:? (1) Approx 20/22 Red Porters (Lal coolie) are mostly found in luggage booking office shed No. 9 of New Complex Goods Shed though these porters are meant to carry any passengers belonging at Howrah Station. The Red Porters namely Dhonji, Ram Babu, Debender, Pagla, Biru, Santosh etc. used to engage themselves in entire process of luggage booking office for loading and unloading from Goods Shed on behalf of the parties. Dhonji and Ram Babu used to collect money from others and paid illegal money to SIPF/T. Giri. (2) Approx 07/08 Blue Coolies namely Bishnu, Naba, Gopal etc. used to enter in HWH station unauthorizedly and engage themselves in loading and unloading goods (illegal goods) in different train specially DN Coromondal Exp. These blue coolies also pay money to him. (3) It is also learnt that merchants of LBO also pay him money for illegal favour. Corrupt practice of this officer also induces other staff to involve in corrupt practices like collecting money from queue system, taking money from loading and unloading etc. Since 1978 to 2010 i.e. 22 years (except posting at PAN/OP/ ASN w.e.f. 20.05.07 to 08.10.09) he was posted around Kolkata area. Corrupt practice of this officer also induces other staff to involve in corrupt practices like collecting money from queue system, taking money from loading and unloading etc. Since 1978 to 2010 i.e. 22 years (except posting at PAN/OP/ ASN w.e.f. 20.05.07 to 08.10.09) he was posted around Kolkata area. Due to his long tenure in and around Kolkata area, he has developed unethical and unwanted relations with crimirais and receivers and has also been indulging in extortion of money and other corrupt practice. For his illegal activities, it is difficult to get direct evidence but intelligence report clearly indicates SIPF/T. Giri's involvement in corrupt practices. On keeping his illegal activities, he is temporally attached to TE-Coy/HWH (I) w.e.f. 01.09.10. At this juncture it is not suitable to keep such an officer with questionable integrity at a very sensitive place like Goods shed post and therefore, he should be immediately shifted to other Divn. far away from this sensitive and public figure Rly. station in the interest of administration. sd/- Sr. Security Commissioner/RPF 5. THE learned Counsel representing the appellant/petitioner submitted that the aforesaid premature transfer order was issued to the appellant/petitioner in view of the aforesaid confidential written communication of the Senior Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway dated 7th October, 2010. 6. IT has been specifically alleged by the learned Counsel of the appellant that the aforesaid punitive transfer order should not have been issued to the petitioner without initiating the disciplinary proceeding or even granting of opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein. The learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner submitted that the aforesaid punitive premature transfer order was issued in violation of the norms, rules and regulations of the respondent Railways Authorities and also in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the respondent authority by the aforesaid premature punitive inter- divisional transfer order has considerably affected and/or prejudiced the credibility and honour of the appellant herein. According to the learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner, the aforesaid impugned punitive inter-divisional transfer order issued by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner casts stigma on the said appellant/petitioner. The learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner further submitted that the said appellant/petitioner was condemned unheard. Mr. Achin Kr. According to the learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner, the aforesaid impugned punitive inter-divisional transfer order issued by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner casts stigma on the said appellant/petitioner. The learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner further submitted that the said appellant/petitioner was condemned unheard. Mr. Achin Kr. Majumdar, learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner specifically submitted that the Chief Security Commissioner or the Additional Chief Security Commissioner should not have proceeded against the appellant/ petitioner herein on the basis of the written confidential report of the Senior Security Commissioner as several allegations touching the character and integrity of the appellant/petitioner were mentioned in the said confidential report without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. 7. THE learned Counsel of the appellant referred to the Standing Order No. 102 dated 29th March, 2010 issued by the Director General, RPF with regard to the transfer of RPF personnel wherein the prescribed tenure of posting of the Sub-Inspector of RPF has been specifically mentioned as five years. THE learned Counsel of the appellant submitted that the aforesaid standing order has been framed in consonance with Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the same has statutory force. It has been specifically urged on behalf of the appellant/ petitioner that the respondent authorities herein have violated the aforesaid Standing Order by transferring the petitioner before completion of the prescribed tenure of five years. 8. REFERRING to the impugned transfer order, the learned Counsel of the appellant submitted that in the impugned transfer order it has been mentioned that the appellant has been transferred in the interest of administration, but as a matter of fact the said transfer order was issued as a penal measure upon placing reliance on the confidential written communication of the Senior Security Commissioner dated 7th October, 2010, which was never disclosed to the appellant/petitioner herein The learned Counsel of the appellant submitted that no punitive measure can be taken against the appellant/petitioner without issuing a prior show-cause notice or granting an opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural justice. 9. THE learned Counsel of the appellant referred to and relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments:? 1. Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2009 (3) SLR 506 (SC) Paragraphs 19 and 20. 2. 9. THE learned Counsel of the appellant referred to and relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments:? 1. Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2009 (3) SLR 506 (SC) Paragraphs 19 and 20. 2. Paras Ram v. State of H. P. and Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SLR 128 (HP) Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. 3. Sham Rao Chandrappa Kamble v. Deputy Engineer (B and C) Panchayat Samity, Mirraj, Sangli and Ors., reported in 1998 (2) SLR 418 (Bom.) Paragraph 3. 4. S. V. Singh v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1988 (2) SLR 545 (Calcutta) Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. Unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjib Kumar Roy, Inspector, RPF v. Union of India and Ors., (M.A.T. No. 2668 of 2004 with C.A.N. No. 7009 of 2004) passed by Their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir (as His Lordship was then) and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asit Kumar Bisi (as His Lordship was then). 10. THE learned Counsel representing the respondent authorities admitted that on receipt of the confidential report dated 7th October, 2010 from the Senior Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway regarding illegal activities and indulgence in corrupt practices by the appellant herein, the competent authority ordered for holding a fact finding enquiry. THE learned Counsel of the respondent further submitted that on perusal of the said preliminary fact finding report, concerned authority found substance in the allegations made against the appellant/ petitioner and therefore, it was considered by the competent RPF Authority that in the interest of administration the appellant/petitioner herein should be transferred and accordingly, the appellant was transferred by the impugned order from Howrah Division to Chittaranjan Division. Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent RPF Authority submitted that the said appellant should have been placed under suspension considering the gravity of the misconduct as reported against him. 11. MR. Chakrabory further submitted that the competent authority considered it appropriate to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 135 of RPF Rules, 1987 which provides as follows:? "The competent authority may consider whether the purpose would be served if the member is transferred from his post. Hence the petitioner/appellant was transferred from his place of posting instead of placing him under suspension. 12. MR. "The competent authority may consider whether the purpose would be served if the member is transferred from his post. Hence the petitioner/appellant was transferred from his place of posting instead of placing him under suspension. 12. MR. Chakraborty also submitted that the appellant herein being a member of the armed force is liable to be transferred to any place in India in the exigencies of service or for administrative reason or to avoid local entanglements or for any other consideration as per Rule 90 of RPF Rules, 1987. Mr. Chakraborty submitted that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the said order and the affected party should approach the Higher Authorities of the department for redressal of the grievances. 13. MR. Chakraborty submitted that the appellant herein has already joined his transferred post in terms of the transfer order on 30th December, 2010 at Chittaranjan and therefore, this Court should not pass any order at the instance of the appellant at this stage, specially when there was no illegality or impropriety in the order of transfer issued to the appellant herein. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent referred to and relied on the following decisions in support of his arguments:? 1. Director of School Education, Madras and Ors. v. O. Karuppa Thevan and Anr., reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666. 2. Union of India v. Janardan Debnath and Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1632 . 3. MRs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 . 14. THE aforesaid decisions cited by the learned Counsel representing the respondents have no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On examination of the relevant records and upon hearing the learned Counsel of both the parties, we find that the appellant herein has been transferred to a different division pursuant to a very serious allegations made by the Senior Security Commissioner in his confidential written communication dated 7th October, 2010. 15. ADMITTEDLY, the appellant herein was never granted any opportunity of hearing in relation to the allegations made against him in the confidential written communication dated 7th October, 2010. No disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the appellant herein pursuant to the aforesaid allegations made by the Senior Security Commissioner. 15. ADMITTEDLY, the appellant herein was never granted any opportunity of hearing in relation to the allegations made against him in the confidential written communication dated 7th October, 2010. No disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the appellant herein pursuant to the aforesaid allegations made by the Senior Security Commissioner. Therefore, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the appellant herein was condemned without granting any opportunity of hearing in relation to the allegations levelled against him. The identical issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Altamas Kabir, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Sanjib Kumar Roy, Inspector, RPF v. Union of India and Ors. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid unreported decision are set out hereunder:? "On perusal of the said paragraph, it appears that the appellant was sought to be transferred on account of very serious allegations of corruption against him. Unfortunately, the appellant was neither given a hearing with regard to the allegations nor was any disciplinary proceedings initiated or even contemplated against the appellant. This is, obviously, a case of an employee being condemned without any hearing on the basis of enquiries made into allegations against him. In our view, this is a case whether the respondent authorities could have taken disciplinary proceedings against the appellant if they so chose instead of taking recourse to an action whereby the appellant was condemned un-heard. In such circumstances, we treat the appeal as on day's list and dispose of the same along with the stay application by quashing the impugned order of transfer ..............................." 16. AS discussed here in before, in the instant case also the appellant herein was transferred by the competent authority in view of the serious allegations made by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Howrah against the said appellant. It is also not in dispute that the said appellant was neither granted any opportunity of hearing in relation to the allegations made by the said Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Howrah nor any disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the said appellant. AS a matter of fact, the appellant was condemned unheard which cannot be approved by us. It is also not in dispute that the said appellant was neither granted any opportunity of hearing in relation to the allegations made by the said Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Howrah nor any disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the said appellant. AS a matter of fact, the appellant was condemned unheard which cannot be approved by us. The learned Single Judge committed a serious error in not appreciating that the impugned inter-divisional transfer order was issued to the appellant as a punitive measure in the guise of the interest of the administration. The said learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the aforesaid inter-divisional transfer order was issued by the concerned authority in violation of the standing order framed by the Railway Board and also in violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural justice. 17. FOR the aforementioned reasons, the impugned premature inter-divisional transfer order issued to the appellant/petitioner by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway under Force Order No. 171/2010 dated 22nd November, 2010 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is accordingly quashed. 18. FOR the identical reasons, the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The respondent authorities herein are directed to allow the petitioner to join the previous place of posting at Howrah Goods Shed Post immediately and appropriate order should be passed by the competent authority in this regard so that the appellant/petitioner can join the duty at Howrah Goods Shed Post at an early date preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 19. WITH the aforesaid directions, we set aside the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the appeal as well as the connected application without awarding costs. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertaking. Sinha, J. : I agree. Later? After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Counsel representing the respondents prays for stay of the operation of the said judgment and order. We find no reason to grant such stay. Accordingly, the prayer for stay is refused. Chattopadhyay, J. Sinha, J.