A.K. Vallimanalan v. The Director General
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.156 of 2017 and M.P.Nos.147 & 148 of 2017 A.K.Vallimanalan Head Constable (General Duty) No.911160325 Plot No.6, CRPF Nagar IAF Post, Mittanamalli Avadi, Chennai-600 065. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director General, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
2. The Inspector General of Police, (Training), Training Directorate, CRPF, Sector-I, R.K.. Puram, New Delhi-110 066.
3. The DIGP/Principal, Recruit Training Centre, GC, CRPF, Avadi Chennai -600 065.
4. The Commandant 85 Bn, CRPF, Naimed Camp, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ..Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to transfer order dated 26.12.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.T.IX.1/2016-EC-I and quash the same and forbear the respondents from transferring the petitioner from Recruit Training Centre(RTC), CRPF, Avadi to 85 Battalion, CRPF, Bijapur till he has acquired medically fit (SHAPE-I).
For Petitioner :M/s.R.Meenakshi For Respondents :Mr.K.Raju Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC)
O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for quashing the transfer order issued by the third respondent dated 26.12.2016 and to forbear the respondents from transferring him from Recruit Training Centre(RTC), CRPF, Avadi to 85 Battalion, CRPF, Bijapur, till he has acquired medically fit (SHAPE-I).
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ petitioner is working in Avadi and has been transferred to 85 Bn, CRPF, Bijapur, Chhatishgar, by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 26.12.2016. 3.Before going into the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the legal principle in the matter of transfer is well defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by the High Courts. The writ petition filed challenging the administrative orders of transfer cannot be entertained in a routine manner.
Writ can be issued against the orders of transfer only on exceptional circumstances if the order of transfer was issued by an authority without Jurisdiction or an incompetent authority issued the order or if the transfer order is in violation of the statutory rules in force or an allegation of mala fides are raised. In case of raising allegation of mala fides against the authority, it is necessary that such an authority against whom allegations are raised is to be impleaded as a party in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any one of such legal grounds, no order of transfer can be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that during January, 2016, the writ petitioner met with an accident, sustained
fracture on both bones of left leg and fracture talus and underwent surgery on 02.01.2016 and undergoing continuous treatment at Rajiv Gandhi Madras Medical College Hospital. Thus, he should be treated as SHAPE-3 category.
5. By virtue of these instructions, the writ petitioner should be allowed to continue in Avadi. This apart, the learned counsel contended that the support of the family is very much essential for taking treatment in Chennai to the writ petitioner and accordingly, the authorities ought to have considered the case of the writ petitioner sympathetically for his continuance in Chennai. 6.This affidavit was filed in the year 2015. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court in the year 2015, the writ petitioner is continuing in the same station at Avadi, Chennai for about six years from the date of his joing at Avadi.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the contentions raised by the writ petitioner on the ground that the respondents themselves admitted the fact that as the writ petitioner is categorized under SHAPE-3, and he is allowed to perform light duties applicable to SHAPE-3 category. Since, he is allowed to perform the SHAPE-3 category, he cannot
claim immunity from administrative transfers. Administrative transfers are issued in respect of all the categories and the employees are placed to various categories and wherever they are posted, they will be allowed to perform the same duties and responsibilities assigned with the particular category, i.e. to say, the writ petitioner even in Bijapur, Chattisgarh will be allowed to perform the duties and responsibilities applicable to SHAPE-3 category. Such being the case, there is no reason whatsiever to challenge the order of transfer by the writ petitioner. This apart, the counsel for the respondents stated that administrative transfers are routine orders issued in the interest of administration and any intervention in the administrative transfers will certainly hamper the peaceful running of the very administration. 8.
This apart, the writ petitioner is continuing in Avadi, for about six years Chennai from 12.10.2016 and further continuance will cause inconvenience not only to the Department, but also to the other police personnel who are waiting for transfer to Chennai from other States. Under these Circumstances, this Court has to consider that whether the order of transfer, transferring the writ petitioner from Chennai to Bijapur,Chhatishgar, is in accordance with law or not.
9.Transfer of an employee is a prerogative power vested with the competent authority. It is for the competent authority to decide how and where to post the personnel for effective administration. The writ petitioner being an employee of an uniformed service has to abide by the administrative orders more specifically of transfers. In respect of medical treatments, this Court is easily able to presume that adequate medical facilities will be certainly available in any State Head Quarters of a State. Intervention in administrative transfers will not only cause inconvenience to the administration, but also amounts to preventing opportunity of other employees to come over to their native places.
Administrative transfer policies are implemented in the interest of the department, more so, in the uniformed services, in order to maintain discipline and good conduct. Periodical transfers of uniformed personnel are highly essential. Keeping an uniformed personnel in one place may create issues relating to others' right to come over to their native places or any native States. CRPF being a disciplined force, has to maintain such a disciplined conduct throughout in the interest of our great nation. This apart, all the Standing Orders and the Guidelines in this regard are instructions to be followed and no Standing Order prohibits the competent authority from issuing administrative transfer and posting.
10.This Court is very much conscious that administrative transfers are allowed to be implemented in the interest of administration. It is not for the Courts to interfere or exercise the power of judicial review in the matter of transfers. Only on exceptional circumstances i.e. to say in the event of violation of any statutory rules, the power of judicial review can be exercised and not otherwise. Violation of certain guidelines /suggestions given in the form of circular or orders, which will not confer any legal right on the employees.
In other words, the circulars and orders of the Government with regard to the guidelines issued for implementing transfers will not confer any right on the employees to claim on the basis of certain concessions shown in the order to make the employees more accommodative and more effective for running the administration. Thus, it is for the competent authorities to consider all these aspects in respect of the personal grievances of the employees, while effecting transfers. Such being the legal principles on transfers, this Court is of the undoubted opinion that the administrative transfers cannot be challenged by way of writ petition and this Court has to be conscious, while exercising the judicial review against the orders of administrative transfers.
11.A Government servant holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and he is liable to be
transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal right. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order, instead the affected party should approach the higher authorities of the department. If Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration, which would not be conducive to public interest. The Courts need not overlook these aspects while interfering with the orders of transfers. 12.In the case on hand, by virtue of an interim order granted by this Court, the writ petitioner is continuously working in Avadi, Chennai. In fact, it is not preferable to allow the writ petitioner to continue in Avadi, Chennai, furthermore. Thus, the writ petition and the grounds raised therein deserve no merit consideration.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
07.08.2017 rpa
To
1. The Director General, CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
2. The Inspector General of Police, (Training), Training Directorate, CRPF, Sector-I, R.K.. Puram, New Delhi-110 066.
3. The DIGP/Principal, Recruit Training Centre, GC, CRPF, Avadi Chennai -600 065.
4. The Commandant 85 Bn, CRPF, Naimed Camp, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J rpa W.P.No.156 of 2017 07.08.2017