UNION OF INDIA Vs. SRIKANTA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Eastern Railways and its officers have challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd February, 2016 holding the transfer of the respondent to be punitive in nature and that it had been effected without following the due process of law. Costs assessed at 1000 GM have been directed to be paid by the Railways to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority.

(2.) The respondent was transferred on 2nd February, 2016 with immediate effect in the interest of administration. A memorandum dated 15th January, 2016 which is in the nature of inter office note indicated that there was a complaint against the respondent. A superior officer by his letter on the previous day had issued an order at the command of the competent authority to spare the respondent immediately for reporting at another place for duty. Aggrieved by this direction transferring him to another place, the respondent challenged this transfer order by filing W.P. 2998(W) of 2016.

(3.) It was the contention of the respondent in the writ petition that the respondent was entitled to continue at least for five years. However, transfers due to the exigencies of service or for administrative reasons envisaged in Rule 90 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the RPF Rules, 1987") were not precluded. It was the contention of the respondent that he had been transferred because of the complaint pending against him and not for "exigencies of service" or "administrative reasons".