Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 148 (MAN)

Kiyam Sadananda Singh v. Union of India

2022-08-09

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the transfer and posting order dated 15.7.2022 in respect of the petitioner, whose name finds place at S.No.25 of the list of incumbents. The petitioner seeks to set aside the same and allow the writ petition with a consequential direction to allow the petitioner to remain in the GC Imphal for one year by relaxing his transfer to 128 Bn in view of Para No.4(xvi)(b)(viii) of the Standing Order No.07/2015. 2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The petitioner entered as CT/GD in the year 2011, pursuant to the order of appointment dated 7.3.2011. He completed his basic training in Assam from 7.3.2011 to 4.8.2012, thereafter he was posted to 31 Bn CRP at Delhi, where he discharged his duties from 5.8.2012 to 10.2.2013. Thereafter, he was posted to 50 Bn CRPF at Lalgarh Punjab from 11.2.2013 to 17.8.2018. Thereupon, he was transferred to 01 Bn CRPF, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh from 18.8.2018 to 11.6.2019. He was eventually posted to GC Imphal from 11.6.2019 and a transfer and posting was issued on 15.7.2022 transferring the petitioner to 128 Bn CRPF. 3. The case of the petitioner as put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was transferred and posted to the GC Imphal under the M & N Sector, North East Zone only with effect from 11.6.2019 and the petitioner's tenure of three years in a peace static station is completed, but his case can be considered for relaxation of one year as per Para 4(xvi)(viii) of the Standing Order No.07/2015, as his wife is suffering from Anxiety Disorder. That apart, as per Para No.4(ix) of the aforesaid Standing Order, a person can serve in a particular Range/Sector for maximum 10 years and in a particular Zone for 14 years, but the petitioner has not put in such length of service and, therefore, considering the illness of his wife, he may be permitted to continue at the present place to enable his wife undergo treatment at Psychiatry Department, RIMS, Imphal. However, ignoring the aforesaid standing order, the transfer order has been effected in the case on hand. 4. However, ignoring the aforesaid standing order, the transfer order has been effected in the case on hand. 4. The next plank of the argument is that the impugned order has been issued directly by the office of the Directorate General of CRPF, New Delhi, in contravention of the Standing Order No.07/2015, which stipulates that inter-zone transfers will be monitored by a Committee comprising DIG Estt and DIsG (Adm) of all zones as members to ensure fair balance across zones. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the Standing Order, before effecting summer chain transfer, the personnel are given five choice posting of their own, but as per the SANTOS App, which is the software through which transfer request is to be made, only a list of predetermined choice postings are given and the same is contrary to the mandate of the Standing Order referred supra. 6. It is further submitted that by depriving the petitioner an opportunity to make a representation against the transfer and posting, the principles of natural justice have been violated and, moreover, in the SANTOS App, there is no provision to submit a representation objecting the transfer to the person of the cadre of the petitioner. When the personnel was permitted to make representation only on 13.7.2022, the respondent's counsel during the course of the hearing on 13.7.2022 served the Signal dated 13.7.2022. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents justified the transfer and posting order and submitted that transfer is a condition of service. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at the place of his choice. The transfer order does not violate legal right of a person holding transferable post, if he is transferred from one place to another in public interest. The order of transfer is an administrative order. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions held that the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer is very limited. The Courts should not interfere with transfer order which is made for administrative reasons, unless an order of transfer is shown to be outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provision prohibiting any such transfer. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 9. The Courts should not interfere with transfer order which is made for administrative reasons, unless an order of transfer is shown to be outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provision prohibiting any such transfer. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 9. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, it is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Standing Order on which heavy reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner: 'Para 4(ix): A person can serve in a particular Range/Sector for maximum 10 years and in a particular Zone for 14 years. It is compulsory for a NGO to serve in a Zone other than his Home Zone for a period of 14 years at least once in his full service. Para 4(xvi)(b)(viii): (xvi) However, the eligibility conditions as laid down above may be relaxed by one year in very deserving cases by Sector IGP in the following Circumstances :- (a) Sudden death of spouse or child. (b) Transfer on medical grounds may be considered on merit in case one's spouse or child suffering from any of the following disease:- i. Cancer ii. Paralytic Stroke iii. Renal failure iv. Coronary artery disease, Thalassaemia v. Parkinson's disease vi. Motor-neuron disease. vii. Infertility viii. Any other critical/serious disease if recommended by the board of medical officers/ Composite Hospitals. Para 5 (vii) Inter-Zonal transfers will be monitored by a Committee comprising DIG Estt as P.O. and DIsG (Adm)/Comdt of Zones as members. Proper balance/in-out ratio should be ensured.' [emphasis supplied] 10. The basis for challenge to the transfer and posting order is the illness of the petitioner's wife. It is the claim of the petitioner that his wife is suffering from 'Anxiety Disorder'. The said fact is substantiated by a certificate issued by the Professor and Head, Department of Psychiatry, RIMS, Imphal. In the certificate dated 7.1.2019, the doctor advised as under: 'She has been suffering from 'Anxiety Disorder'. She needs prolonged treatment under the supervision and care by her family members.' 11. It is not the case of the case of the respondents that the transfer and posting order has been passed in public interest. Therefore, that angle need not be delved into. The order of transfer has been passed as a routine summer transfer. 12. She needs prolonged treatment under the supervision and care by her family members.' 11. It is not the case of the case of the respondents that the transfer and posting order has been passed in public interest. Therefore, that angle need not be delved into. The order of transfer has been passed as a routine summer transfer. 12. A perusal of the service record of the petitioner shows that he had worked at various places like Assam, Delhi, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, before he was posted in Imphal. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner is holding on to a particular place of his choice for year. He has just completed his tenure of three years and, accordingly, based on routine summer transfer, a transfer and posting order was issued to him. As per Para 4(ix) of the Standing Order, a person can serve in a particular Range/Sector for maximum 10 years and in a particular Zone for 14 years. When such is the provision, the respondent should have considered the request of the petitioner in the light of the said provision. 13. That apart, Para 4(xvi)(b)(viii) mandates that the eligibility condition for transfer may be relaxed by one year in deserving cases and transfer on medical grounds may be considered on merits in case one's spouse or child is suffering from 'Any other critical/serious disease if recommended by the board of medical officers/ Composite Hospitals.' The doctor's advice, referred supra, at this stage gains credence. Nothing has been produced on behalf of the respondents to show that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the advice given by the doctor. 14. This court, prima facie, is of the opinion that the respondents have ignored the mandate postulated in the Standing Order referred supra, while considering the case of the petitioner for transfer. The impugned transfer and posting order is hit by the aforesaid provisions of the Standing Order. 15. The other grounds raised by the petitioner are that the SANTOS Application which is used for effecting transfer does not provide an opportunity to make a choice. The said aspect can be looked into by the respondent authorities, to ensure that an opportunity is given to one and all working in CRPF to put forth their request. 16. 15. The other grounds raised by the petitioner are that the SANTOS Application which is used for effecting transfer does not provide an opportunity to make a choice. The said aspect can be looked into by the respondent authorities, to ensure that an opportunity is given to one and all working in CRPF to put forth their request. 16. The next ground urged was that the transfer and posting order was effected in contravention of the Standing Order by an officer, instead of it being by a Committee. 17. Inasmuch as this court is, prima facie, satisfied that the impugned order is passed in contravention of Paras 4(ix) and Paragraph 4(xvi)(b)(viii) of the Standing Order, we do not propose to answer the competence of the officer who passed the impugned order, as this court is remanding the matter to the respondent authorities. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted to the competent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the provisions quoted herein above from the Standing Order, more so, considering the doctor's advice qua the necessity of the petitioner's wife to undergo prolonged treatment. The respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. (ii) The respondent authorities shall also consider the defect pointed out by the petitioner in the SANTOS Application and ensure that everyone working in CRPF is given an opportunity to express his choice. (iii) The case of transfer and posting shall be considered by the competent authority in terms of the Standing Order, i.e., the Committee comprising DIG Estt as P.O. and DIsG (Adm)/Comdt of Zones as members. There will be no order as to costs.