(Prayer: This Writ Petition is Filed Under Articles 226 and 227 of The Contitution of India, Praying to quash the Movement Order dated 16-10-2014 Issued by Respondent No.2 Vide Annexure-A, and Etc.)
1. The petitioner has challenged the movement order dated 16.10.2014, passed by the office of the Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (for short, the C.I.S.F ), and the order dated 8.7.2015, passed by the Director General, C.I.S.F. By the former order, the petitioner was transferred from Bengaluru to Neyveli in Tamil Nadu. By the latter order, the Director has rejected the petitioner s representation
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Constable in the C.I.S.F, Bengaluru. By order dated 16.10.2014, the petitioner was transferred from Bengaluru to Neyveli. The petitioner has challenged the same by filing in this writ petition. By order dated 3.6.2015, this Court had directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Director General, C.I.S.F. Consequently, on 9.6.2015, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Director General, C.I.S.F. However, after going through the detailed representation, by the order dated 8-7-2015, the petitioner s representation has been rejected. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Mr.H.S. Prashant, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to the impugned order dated 8.7.2015, the petitioner has been transferred only because a discrete enquiry was made with regard to certain anonymous complaint made against the petitioner and others. Although initially a discrete enquiry was made, and the petitioner was exonerated, subsequently another discrete enquiry has been made, wherein, according to the Enquiry Officer, some of the complaints against the petitioner has been found to be partly proved. Relying on the Circular dated 19.2.2014 (Annexure-J), the learned counsel has pleaded that in case of an anonymous complaint, the same is required to be filed. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in holding a discrete enquiry against the petitioner.
Secondly, the petitioner was never given a chance to be heard while holding the discrete enquiry against the petitioner in the second round.
Thirdly, the petitioner has certain family problems such as, both his children are studying in Second and Fourth class, his mother is suffering from diabetes, for which, she requires medical treatment. However, his family problems have been ignored by the Director General while passing the impugned order dated 8.7.2015. Lastly, that even the Movement order dated 16.10.2014 was passed against the petitioner for no rhyme or reason. Therefore, both the impugned orders deserve to be interfered with.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok N. Patil, the learned Central Government Counsel, has strenuously pleaded that according to the transfer policy, the petitioner is permitted to be posted in a Home Zone for a period of twelve years. Since the petitioner belongs to Karnataka, he belongs to the Southern Region. Even Tamil Nadu is within the Home Zone of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has completed more than six years in Karnataka, he can easily be transferred to Neyveli in Tamil Nadu, as both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu fall within the Home Zone.
Secondly that the Circular dated 19.2.2014 is merely directory, and not mandatory in nature. Since a number of complaints were filed not only against the petitioner, but even against other officers, including the Deputy Commandant, the officers at the station were not willing to make a statement against the Deputy Commandant, Mr. M.K. Tamil Selvan, and against the petitioner and others. Thus, it was necessary to hold a second discrete enquiry. The complaints not only related to the petitioner s rude behavior, but also related to the allegations about his character. Due to these allegations, the persons working with the petitioner were progressively turning hostile to him. Therefore, in order to maintain discipline within the force, in order to ensure the petitioners safely and comfort, it was necessary to transfer the petitioner from Bangalore to Neyveli.
Thirdly, according to the Transfer Guidelines, a person may not be transferred in case his children are studying in Higher Secondary School, but in the case of the petitioner, his children are studying merely in the elementary school. Moreover, the treatment sought by the petitioner s mother is equally available at Neyveli. Therefore, taking a holistic view of the circumstances, the respondents were justified in transferring the petitioner from Bangalore to Neyveli in Tamil Nadu.
Lastly, that since the petitioner is being transferred on administrative ground, the petitioner cannot claim that any of his civil or fundamental rights have been violated by the transfer order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both parties, and perused the impugned order, as well as examined the record.
6. The Circular dated 19.2.2014 merely prescribes a guideline as to how anonymous complaints are supported to be dealt with. However, the said circular cannot fetter the discretion of the Commanding Officer with regard to anonymous complaints received by him. After all, the Commanding Officer is required to maintain discipline in the unit. If certain allegations are made against a person which may create problems in the unity of the force, or may lead to untoward incidents, the Commanding Officer would be well within his discretion to direct a discrete enquiry to be made.
7. Considering the fact that some of the allegations were with regard to the character, and conduct of the Deputy Commandant, and these allegations equally involved the petitioner, it is not surprising that the residents of the station and other offices did not make any statement when the first discrete enquiry was conducted. It is only on the basis of anonymity that the allegations were made. Moreover, considering the nature of the allegations, which in the interest of justice, this Court would not like to reveal, even in its judicial order, as the mentioning of the allegations may adversely affect the interest of the petitioner in future, suffice it to say that the allegations are of nature which may disturb even tempo of the unit.
8. Considering the fact that the respondents were well aware of the development of a hostile environment within the unit, not only against the petitioner, but against other persons, against whom allegations have been leveled, considering the fact that those persons against whom allegations have been leveled, they have been transferred out of Bangalore, the Movement order dated 16.10.2014 cannot be faulted.
9. Although it is true that the petitioner does have certain family problems, but the same have been considered by the Director General in the impugned order dated 8.7.2015. The Director General has clearly noticed the fact that the petitioner has two small children studying in the elementary school. But considering the fact that children are merely studying in the elementary school, the petitioner s transfer would not ordinarily adversely affect their education. Furthermore, the medical difficulties of the petitioner s mother, according to the Director General, can be taken care of even at Neyveli in Tamil Nadu. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not justified in claiming that the petitioner s family problems have been ignored by the Director General. 10. It is, indeed, trite to state that transfer is an incidence of service. Those who are committed to the Defence, and are part of the para-military force, such as Central Industrial Security Force, such persons dedicate their life to the defence of the infrastructure of the country. Being a part of the disciplined force, ordinarily they cannot claim that they should not be transferred from one place to the other. Since the petitioner is still being kept within the Home Zone, the petitioner cannot claim that his civil rights, of fundamental rights are being violated by the impugned transfer order dated 16.10.2014, or by the impugned order dated 8.7.2015.
11. As a last resort, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that according to the Transfer Guidelines, a transfer is supposed to take place before the month of April each year. However, in the present case, the petitioner has been transferred in the middle of the academic year, in October 2014. Needless to say, a transfer guideline is merely a guideline; it is not mandatory on the respondents to follow the same. The guideline happens to be merely directory in nature. A transfer policy does not tie the hands and feet of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents are justified in transferring the petitioner on the basis of an administrative exigency. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. It is, hereby dismissed.