P DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the petitioner who is an Inspector Grade II (Fire) of the Railway Protection Force challenging the impugned order of transfer annexed as annexure C to the writ application issued by the Chief Security Officer on the ground inter alia that the said transfer purports to transfer the petitioner from Kharagpur Division to Garden reach Division which is not permissible except with the sanction of the President of India. It has been also pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has six school and college going daughters reading in different schools and colleges and more particularly two daughters reading in the school and if this transfer is effected in this mid session it will be difficult to get admission of those daughters of he petitioner in a madhyamik School in Calcutta and this will seriously affect the educational career of these two daughters of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the transfer has been made by the Security Officer who is not empowered to issue the impugned order of transfer. It has also been stated in this connection that the petitioner heving hailed from Kharagpur which is his native place and he has only less than three years of service at his disposal and so he should not be transferred on consideration of this compassionate ground that he being the father of six daughters in order to enable him to make some residential accommodation for members of his family. On all these grounds the impugned order of transfer has been assailed in the instant writ application before this Court on 19. 5. 83. On hearing the petitioner this Court directed the application to appear two weeks after the reopening of the Court after the summer vacation and an interim order of maintaining status quo as on that day was made. The petitioner thereafter made a representation against the order of transfer before the Chief Security Officer stating all the grounds and the representation has been annexed as annexure F to the petition. It appears from annexure G that the representation was considered by the Chief Security Officer and an order was made on 12. 5. 83 whereby it was found that no new grounds exist for retaining the petitioner in his present place of posting viz. at Kharag-pur and the representation was rejected.

(2.) MR. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing in support of this petition, has urged before this Court only two grounds. The first ground is that regarding the question of inter divisional transfer an appeal is pending before the Appeal Bench of this Court where it has been observed that the question involved requires to be decided and as such there was an order of stay of operation of the order of transfer made by the Appeal Bench. Referring to this order it has been pleaded before this Court that since the appeal is pending and stay order has been granted by the Appeal Bench stay should be granted by this Court and Rule should be issued. The second branch of Mr. Chatterjee's argument is that the petitioner is the father of six daughters of which four are reading in different colleges and two are reading in secondary schools in Midnapore and if this transfer is effected in this mid session then education of these two children at least will be seriously affected and oh this consideration he urged before this Court that the order of transfer should not be given effect to. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has got little less than three years' tenure of service at his disposal and he is going to reach the age of superannuation on the 30th January, 1986 and as such considering this aspect of the matter the order of transfer should be kept in abeyance.

(3.) MR. Choudhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Railways, has on the other hand submitted before this Court by referring to provision of sec. 15 of the Railway Protection Force Act that all the members of the Railway Protection Force are liable to be transferred in any part of India. Mr. Choudhury thereafter referred of rules 21 and 25 of Chapter II and also appendix I where from it appears that the Chief Security Officer is the authority empowered under these rules and regulations made or framed under the Railway Protection Force Act to pass appropriate order of transfer against an officer of the rank of the petitioner, viz. Inspector grade II (Fire ). In this case undoubtedly the impugned order of transfer has been passed by the Chief Security Officer as has been admitted by the petitioner. It has been therefore submitted by Mr. Chowdhury that there is no infirmity or defect in the Impugned order of transfer. In this connection Mr. Choudhury drew the attention of this Court to the relevant circulars wherefrom it appears that transfer of an Inspector in the Fire Service Department of the Railway Protection Force can be made after he has completed certain years of service in a particular station and as such in this case the order of transfer was made not only for the exigency of the administration but also on a consideration of his completion of seven years' service at Kharagpur. It has, therefore, been submitted that the order of transfer is not per se bad or in derogation of the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act and/or the rules or regulations framed thereunder. It has been also submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the difficulties regarding the education of the children of the petitioner which he has specifically mentioned in the petition of appeal before the Chief Security Officer was duly considered by the Chief Security Officer and after considering those grounds the chief Security Officer has found that there will be no difficulty in prosecuting studies for those daughters of the. petitioner who are reading in schools under the West Ben gal Board of Secondary Education which also controls the secondary education that is imparted in schools in Calcutta. It has therefore been submitted that there is no infirmity in the order itself. Mr. Choudhury in support of his submission contends that transfer being the normal incidence of the service and being made in consideration of the exigency of the service cannot be assai led in this writ application by citing some decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court.