RAVI KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pertinently, this is second round of litigation by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner in the first round of litigation being W.P.(C) No. 14736/22 had sought quashing of the signals dtd. 15/9/2022 and 21/9/2022 and movement order dtd. 6/10/2022 passed by the respondents. In the first round of litigation and this Court vide decision dtd. 18/10/2022 had directed the competent authority of respondents to decide petitioner's representation dtd. 21/9/2022 within two weeks.

(2.) Aggrieved against the decision dtd. 25/10/2022 passed by the respondents apropos thereto, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the said order dtd. 25/10/2022; signals dtd. 15/9/2022 and 21/9/2022 and movement order dtd. 6/10/2022 passed by the respondents. In addition, direction is also sought to respondents to either permit petitioner to complete his four years tenure at OPS Directorate, FHQ, New Delhi or to post him to any other Directorate/Establishment in Delhi to enable him to complete remainder of his three years' tenure.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that Rule 5 of Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000 prescribed that the tenure of members of the Force belonging to the ministerial cadre shall be four years and petitioner was posted at FHQ, New Delhi only in September, 2021. Also submitted that petitioner has remained posted at Meghalaya Frontier for nearly 7 years out of his service tenure of 15 years and respondents have arbitrarily rejected petitioner's request to continue posting at FHQ, New Delhi. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been transferred from OPS Directorate, FHQ, New Delhi without affording an opportunity of hearing and that the information inadvertently disclosed by the petitioner was very much available in the public domain. Learned counsel next submitted that against the Show Cause Notice, petitioner has already been issued a warning and for the same action of petitioner, he cannot be given two punishments.