HITESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the second respondent viz., The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), New Delhi dated 04.09.2017, in and by which the second respondent, who is the competent authority, has approved the posting of Constables (GD) and Constables/TM as mentioned in Appendix-"A" attached to that order, transferring 113 personnel from one place to another and the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the third respondent viz., Inspector General (Western Headquarters), Kharghar, in and by which the third respondent has issued posting order for the aforementioned 113 personnel and the consequential order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the fifth respondent viz., The Commandant, CISF, Airport Security Group (Chennai), Chennai, relieving the petitioner from Chennai.

(2.) Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, while heavily assailing the impugned order, submitted that the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings by issuing Charge Memo dated 30.08.2017 on the allegation that the petitioner has informed/requested his own group of friends in WhatsApp not to sign the form of TPT allowance stating that the respondents are using old time tactics and therefore, they should go through the contents of the form and then they should wait for some time till suitable order is obtained from the Court. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge on the ground that the abovementioned message given to his own group of friends will not amount to misconduct. The respondents disallowing the petitioner's explanation, proceeded further by appointing an Enquiry Officer and on completion of enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and thereupon, an order of punishment dated 29.12.2017 was issued against the petitioner, imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect and immediately, on the same day, the respondents have issued the impugned transfer order, posting the petitioner in LWE (Left Wing Extremist) affected area, which is punitive in nature, hence, the transfer order cannot be passed with punitive nature.

(3.) Again assailing the impugned order of transfer, the learned counsel for the petitioner further pleaded that the respondents cannot punish the petitioner twice for the same charge and while the petitioner was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect, vide order dated 29.12.2017, posting the petitioner in LWE affected area again after completing two years clearly shows that the impugned order was issued with malafide intention to harass the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to Guidelines for Posting/Transfer of CISF Personnel in Circular No.22/2017 dated 25.09.2017 issued by the second respondent, more particularly Clause 37(c) stated that the posting tenure in LWE affected units and Uri-I, Uri-II, PGCIL Wagoora, DHEP Dulhasti, 7th RB Kistwar, DHEP Doyang would be 2 years and the tenure at proposed KGHPP deployment in Gurej Valley and Bandipora shall also be for 2 years and the tenure of other units located in hard area will be 3 years. But in the present case, the petitioner has already completed the tenure of 2 years in hard area and after imposing him the punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect, he cannot be again imposed with punishment by way of transfer, more particularly to LWE affected area, which is meant for fresh personnel who have not served in LWE affected area.