P. KARUNAKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order of transfer . His challenge against the said order of transfer before the Tribunal was rejected in O.A.No. 296 of 2013 dated 9.4.2013.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: He is working as Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector at Chennai Central Railway Station for the past 29 years. On 10.6.2012, he boarded the train bearing No.12601 starting from Chennai Central Railway Station by 8.25 p.m for the purpose of checking . He got down at Arakonam. On the very next day he boarded the train No.12674, Cheran Express from Arakonam by 4.45 a.m. and came to Chennai Perambur Railway Station at 5.50 a.m. On alighting at Perambur Railway Station, he was taken to police station by a Sub Inspector of Police viz., Palaniyandi by making a false allegation as if he robbed a sum of Rs. 2,300/ from a person with mobile phone. No complaint whatsoever was filed by such person. However, the petitioner was dragged to the police station and his house was also searched without any warrant. Pursuant to the above incident, he immediately lodged a complaint on 12.6.2012 against the police personnel to the Inspector General of Railway Police. He also lodged another complaint on 13.6.2012 to the Director General of Police, Chennai, State Human Rights Commission as well as to other authorities. As no action was taken the petitioner sought leave through his request dated 9.7.2012 from his department to file a private complaint against the Railway Police.

(3.) WHILE that being so, he was served with an order of suspension on 14.12.2012 under the guise of contemplating disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in Cr.O.P.No. 31162 of 2012. Subsequently, by an order dated 23.1.2013, the suspension was revoked. However, the petitioner was served with an order of transfer dated 21.1.2013 transferring him to Northeast Frontier Railway, Guwahati from the present place. The said impugned order was challenged in the O.A. stating that the order of transfer is purely punitive in nature and issued in lieu of punishment pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings contemplated. Hence, the order of transfer having been passed as a punitive measure is liable to be set aside.