JUDGMENT : Rajeev Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Shri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the State. 2. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 19.06.2018 passed by Special Secretary, Home, Government of U.P. Lucknow for transferring the investigation of Case Crime No.208 A of 2015 Police Station G.R.P. Gonda on the choice of accused side. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the son of petitioner was working in Prism Cement Ltd. as Assistant Manager (Sales) and due to some official work, he was going to Faizabad from Mankapur by Train namely Gorakhpur-Yashwan Nagar Express Train No.15023 and at the place of Tikri. In the meantime, respondent No.6 who is T.T.E. (Train Ticket Examiner) in the Railways, came and asked for the ticket and the son of the petitioner has shown the ticket of General Class. As a result, the respondent No.6 asked to pay the penalty to the ticket and demanded Rs.1000/-and the son of petitioner gave the same but neither the ticket was made nor any receipt of payment was given to the son of petitioner. Therefore, his son requested to make his ticket and also provide the receipt of penalty but the opposite party No.6 denied and started abusing by showing his own pistol but when his son raised objection, then he was thrown out from the running train, as a result, he received serious injuries and thereafter, with the help of others, he was immediately brought to the Community Health Centre, Mankapur, District Gonda and on the advise of doctor therein he was referred to District Hospital, Gonda, but due to serious condition and head injury, his son was admitted in Raj Rajeshwari Hospital, Faizabad. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that one FIR was lodged as Case Crime No.Nil/29 of 2015 under Sections 332, 353, 392 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P. Faizabad, District Faizabad by the respondent No.6 with intention to save him, which was subsequently converted into the Case Crime No.208 of 2015, under Sections 332, 353,392 I.P.C. Police Station G.R.P. District Gonda in which under influence of opposite party No.6, the chargesheet under Sections 332 and 353 I.P.C. dated 16.08.2015 was filed by the Investigating Agency and the ACJM, Railway Gonda took cognizance and registered the case as Case No.2833 of 2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the FIR of petitioner was transferred to the Police Station G.R.P., District Gonda and registered as Case Crime No.208A of 2015, under Sections 307, 325, 323, 504 I.P.C. read with Section 152 Railways Act, Police Station G.R.P., District Gonda. 6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid FIR of the petitioner, the respondent No.6 filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.10596 (M/B) of 2015 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.), the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2016, after considering the counter affidavit filed by the Prosecuting Agency. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that under the influence of respondent No.6, the investigation of Case Crime No.208A of 2015 was going on but it has been transferred from Gonda to Deoria and again the matter was transferred to G.R.P. Gonda. As respondent No.6 was searching the suitability, as a result, being aggrieved with the aforesaid action for transferring the investigation, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.2435 (M/B) of 2017 before this Court in which vide order dated 03.02.2017, this Hon’ble Court directed the learned counsel for Government Railway Police (GRP), Gonda to produce the original record by which the investigation of Case Crime No.208A of 2015(supra) was transferred from G.R.P. Gonda to G.R.P. Charbagh, District Lucknow. On several dates, the time was sought by the learned A.G.A. but the record was not produced. In the meantime, final report was filed on 24.03.2017. As it was found by this Court that Investigating Agency does not appear to be fair. On several dates, the time was sought by the learned A.G.A. but the record was not produced. In the meantime, final report was filed on 24.03.2017. As it was found by this Court that Investigating Agency does not appear to be fair. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court directed video order dated 10.05.2017 for re-investigation by an officer not below the Rank of Circle Officer and also directed that the Re-Investigation would be supervised by Superintendent of Police G.R.P. The order dated 10.05.2017 passed in the Writ Petition No.2435 of 2017 is being reproduced as under:- "1. Order dated 10.5.2017 reads as under:- "1. The petitioner is complainant of Case Crime No.208-A of 2015, under Sections 323, 325, 307 and 504 IPC read with Section 152 Railway Act, Police Station GRP, District Gonda. 2. Short counter affidavit of Shri Santosh Kumar Rai, Sub-Inspector, GRP, Charbagh, Lucknow has been filed in Court, which is taken on record. In para-5 of the affidavit, it has been stated that there was skirmish between TTE (Train Ticket Examiner) and other persons. Scuffle took place. The injured fled from the spot. No injuries were received by him (Saurabhdhar Dubey). Medical examination report does not find support from the statement of the eye-witnesses. 3. We have referred to the injury report placed on record as Annexure-4 with the main petition. Apparently, as many as nine stitched wound have been found on the person of Saurabhdhar Dubey. There are other contusions and abrasions also, large in number. The stand of the investigating agency does not appear to be fair and prima facie justified. 4. Considering the medical evidence and the vague reply filed by the investigating agency, we hereby direct that reinvestigation would be undertaken by an officer not below the rank of Circle Officer. 5. Reinvestigation would be supervised by Superintendent of Police, GRP. 6. Superintendent of Police, GRP shall file his affidavit in Court after conclusion of reinvestigation. 7. List on 31.7.2017. 8. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to Inspector General of Police, Railway, Lucknow, who shall depute the investigating officer as directed above." 8. In pursuance of the aforesaid Court's order nothing was done. Therefore, vide order dated 16.11.2017 this Court directed the Authority for submitting the explanation. 7. List on 31.7.2017. 8. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to Inspector General of Police, Railway, Lucknow, who shall depute the investigating officer as directed above." 8. In pursuance of the aforesaid Court's order nothing was done. Therefore, vide order dated 16.11.2017 this Court directed the Authority for submitting the explanation. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 10.05.2017 and 16.11.2017 in Writ Petition No.2435 (M/B) of 2017, fair and proper investigation was conducted under the Supervision of Superintendent of Police, GRP, Gorakhpur and investigating officer submitted an affidavit in respect of conclusion of investigation. Therefore, vide order dated 20.12.2017 the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of. The order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2435 of 2017 is being reproduced as under:- 1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 30.12.2016 passed by Superintendent of Police, Railway, Gorakhpur Annexure-1 and order dated 26.12.2016 passed by Inspector General of Police, Railway, Lucknow. The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct fair and proper investigation in Case Crime No.208-A of 2015, under Sections 323, 325, 307, 504 I.P.C. and Section 152 Railway Act. 2. Perusal of impugned order Annexure-1 indicates that investigation was transferred. 3. From the order-sheet, it appears that considering various facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the documents, and discrepancies in the investigation, this Court passed order dated 10.05.2017 in the following terms:- "1. The petitioner is complainant of Case Crime No.208-A of 2015, under Sections 323, 325, 307 and 504 IPC read with Section 152 Railway Act, Police Station GRP, District Gonda. 2. Short counter affidavit of Shri Santosh Kumar Rai, Sub-Inspector, GRP, Charbagh, Lucknow has been filed in Court, which is taken on record. In para-5 of the affidavit, it has been stated that there was skirmish between TTE (Train Ticket Examiner) and other persons. Scuffle took place. The injured fled from the spot. No injuries were received by him (Saurabhdhar Dubey). Medical examination report does not find support from the statement of the eye-witnesses. 3. We have referred to the injury report placed on record as Annexure-4 with the main petition. Apparently, as many as nine stitched wound have been found on the person of Saurabhdhar Dubey. There are other contusions and abrasions also, large in number. Medical examination report does not find support from the statement of the eye-witnesses. 3. We have referred to the injury report placed on record as Annexure-4 with the main petition. Apparently, as many as nine stitched wound have been found on the person of Saurabhdhar Dubey. There are other contusions and abrasions also, large in number. The stand of the investigating agency does not appear to be fair and prima facie justified. 4. Considering the medical evidence and the vague reply filed by the investigating agency, we hereby direct that reinvestigation would be undertaken by an officer not below the rank of Circle Officer. 5. Reinvestigation would be supervised by Superintendent of Police, GRP. 6. Superintendent of Police, GRP shall file his affidavit in Court after conclusion of reinvestigation. 7. List on 31.7.2017. 8. Let a copy of this order be conveyed to Inspector General of Police, Railway, Lucknow, who shall depute the investigating officer as directed above." 4. From the above, it is evident that re-investigation was ordered by this Court. The re-investigation was to be supervised by Sri Abhishek Yadav, posted as Superintendent of Police, GRP Gorakhpur. Short affidavit has been filed by Shri Abhishek Yadav in Court today which is taken on record. In para 14 of the affidavit conclusion after re-investigation has been given. The following needs to be considered:- "14. That from the above facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the entire investigation, on the basis of Case Diary the deponent who is also monitoring the investigation has arrived at conclusion that the accused TTE Sri Anil Kumar Singh had pushed Saurabhdhar Dubey by showing him his Pistol from a running train or by his action the victim was so terrified that he after leaving all his belonging ran and slipped from the train therefor, in view of the above two conditions it can be ascertained that commission of crime was committed due to criminal action of TTE Sri Anil Kumar Singh/Apart from above after going through the statement of the witnesses and considering the entire material evidences which is available on record the offences under Sections 307, 323, 504, 325 IPC and Section 152 Railway Act prima facie found to be committed by TTE Sri Anil Kumar Singh. 15. 15. That till date the accused TTE Sri Anil Kumar Singh has not joined the investigation and never appeared before the Investigating Officer for recording his statement therefore, the Prosecuting Agency has invoked Section 82 Cr.P.C. against him after order passed by the concerned Court below." 5. The conclusion drawn by the investigating officer appears to be that TTE, Sri Anil Kumar committed the offence. 6. While we understand the anxiety of Shri Ravi Singh appearing for respondent no.7 Anil Kumar on various counts, however this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily direct the investigating officer to declare a person to be innocent, or guilty. The investigation as conducted is required to be accepted, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. We however, record that reinvestigation has been conducted under supervision of Shri Abhishek Yadav, IPS officer posted as S.P. GRP, Gorakhpur who is a senior officer. In such circumstances, we find no reason to pass any order to the contrary. 7. The petition is disposed of. 8.We further direct that investigation be concluded at the earliest. 9. The necessary consequences would follow in regard to the cross case. State counsel shall ensure compliance. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that although the investigation was concluded under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, G.R.P. Gorakhpur in compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Hon’ble Court, the chargesheet was filed against the opposite party No.6 and court below has taken cognizance, the respondent No.6 was summoned but under the influence of respondent No.6 and on the recommendation of Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh (Member of Legislative Assembly), the investigation of Case No.208A of 2015 (supra) was transferred to CBCID without any rhyme and reason vide order dated 19.06.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the time of passing of impugned order, the fact was not considered by the State Government that in pursuance of directions passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2435 (MB) of 2017, the investigation of Case Crime No.208A of 2015 (supra) was conducted under the supervision of Mr. Abhishek Yadav (Superintendent of Police), GRP Gorakhpur and chargesheet was filed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.06.2018 is arbitrary and illegal. 10. At the admission stage, this Hon’ble Court passed an interim order, vide order dated 23.07.2018 staying the operation of impugned order dated 19.06.2018. 11. Abhishek Yadav (Superintendent of Police), GRP Gorakhpur and chargesheet was filed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.06.2018 is arbitrary and illegal. 10. At the admission stage, this Hon’ble Court passed an interim order, vide order dated 23.07.2018 staying the operation of impugned order dated 19.06.2018. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that court below took cognizance on the chargesheet filed by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No.208A of 2015 (supra) which was registered as Case No.98 of 2018 and the petitioner filed a application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Application No.4921 of 2018 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) on which was dismissed on 13.08.2018. 12. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and it was passed after following due process of law. 13. The counter affidavit was filed by the Principal Secretary Home, Government of U.P. and submitted that the investigation can be transferred by the State Government and in para-4 of the counter affidavit, he has stated that after considering all the aspects of the matter and following due process, the transfer order has been passed and the investigation of Case Crime No.208A of 2015 (supra) was transferred to CBCID and admitted that Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, (MLA) recommended for transfer of investigation. In para-5 it is mentioned that while taking decision for transferring the investigation three grounds were considered i.e. (i) the case crime No.208A of 2015 (supra) was lodged by the petitioner only with intention to make pressure on the TTE for settlement/compromise and also obtained forged medical report (ii) the Statement of two witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded but the Investigating Officer fail to consider the same (iii) in the departmental inquiry, the TTE (respondent No.6) was exonerated. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the State Government for transferring the investigation but he has not denied the fact that the investigation of Case Crime No.208A of 2015 (supra) was conducted under the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No.2435 (M/B) of 2017 and the charesheet was filed and cognizance has been taken by the court below. 15. 15. It is also relevant to mention here that the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2435 (M/B) of 2017 is available on the original record, which was placed by the learned A.G.A. in relation to the impugned order but this fact was not considered at the time of passing the impugned order. 16. After considering the argument of learned counsel for the parties, pleadings and going through the record, it is found that in compliance of the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.2435 (M/B) of 2017, the Case Crime No.208A of 2015 (supra) was re-investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police and thereafter, chargesheet was filed on 12.02.2018 and cognizance was taken by the court below and it was registered as Case No.98 of 2018. 17. After examining the original record in relation to the impugned order for transferring the investigation of case crime No.208A of 2015 (supra) it is found that father of respondent No.6 made a request for transferring the investigation of aforesaid case to CBCID. The report was asked from the Superintendent of Police Railway Gorakhpur by Deputy Secretary Home Police, U.P. vide letter No.376 (1)MM/6-2-14-2017-70 931 of 2017 dated 11.04.2018 and the report dated 16.04.2018 was sent by S.P. GRP, Gorakhpur and clearly informed that the investigation of aforesaid case was conducted under the direction was given by Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.2435 (M/B) of 2017 and the chargesheet has been filed on 12.02.2018 in the court below and further reported that the application for transfer of investigation is given by the father of accused to save him. 18. The impugned order is unreasoned and it was passed without considering the fact that the investigation of case Crime No.208A of 2015 (supra) was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police under the direction of this Hon’ble Court and the report of S.P. GRP, Gorakhpur was also not considered. 19. It is well settled by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohindhr Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, 1978 (1) SCC 405 that when statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the order, and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, 1978 (1) SCC 405 that when statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the order, and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Para 8 (relevant portion) from the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow. "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji[Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 ] : "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." 20. Attention of the Court has also been drawn towards Circular No. 27 of 2014 dated 10th May, 2014 issued by Director General of Police related to the transfer of investigation. In para 2(iv) of the said Circular, it is provided that on the request of the accused, investigation should not be transferred in the ordinary circumstances. In para 2(x) of the Circular, it is categorically provided that the order by which investigation of a case has been transferred, must be a speaking order. It is apparent from the impugned order that neither it is a reasoned order nor is speaking one. 21. The chargesheet of Case Crime No.208 A of 2015 was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.4921 of 2018 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) which was dismissed on 13.08.2018 by this Court and the court below has taken cognizance. 22. 21. The chargesheet of Case Crime No.208 A of 2015 was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.4921 of 2018 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) which was dismissed on 13.08.2018 by this Court and the court below has taken cognizance. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, the petition is allowed and the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by Special Secretary, Home, Government of U.P. Lucknow placed on record (Annexure-1) and all consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. 23. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of Case Crime No.208 A of 2015 under Sections 307, 325, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 152 Railways Act, Police Station G.R.P. Gonda, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment. The Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned for strict compliance. 24. The Bench Secretary will ensure that the original record in relation to impugned order be handed over to Mr. S.P. Singh, (A.G.A.) forthwith.