Irungbam Lokendra Singh vs Union Of India through

Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned CGC, who accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents 1 to 5.

[2] With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

[3] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the transfer order dated 30.12.2020 issued by the third respondent Inspector General

(Pers) in respect of the petitioner and the fifth respondent and to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work as DIGP, Group

Centre, CRPF, Langjing.

[4] The case of the petitioner is that he joined CRPF in the year 1993 through direct recruitment and subsequently, he was promoted till the rank of

DIGP. After promotion from the Commandant to DIGP, he was posted at Ranchi under Jharkhand Sector for a tenure period, which is hard field area

and after Completion of his tenure period at Ranchi, he was transferred to his home State Manipur at Group Centre, Langjing with effect from

28.5.2018 and his tenure will be completed on 28.5.2021. While so, by violating the Standing Order No.7 of 2014, the third respondent issued the

impugned transfer order prematurely transferring the petitioner to Southern Sector at Nagpur Range. Stating that the impugned transfer order is in

violation of the Standing Order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

[5] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner was posted in the office of the DIG Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal since

28.5.2018 and he is serving as DIGP, Group Centre, Imphal till date. However, by the impugned transfer order, the petitioner was transferred to

Southern Sector, CRPF, Nagpur Range without assigning any reason in remarks column and the said transfer is without the public interest and also

without completing his tenure period of three years i.e., 28.5,2021. He would submit that the impugned transfer order was issued in violation of the

Standing Order No.7 of 2014 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF.

[6] Clauses 2(iii) and (xvii) of the Standing Order No.7 of 2014 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF, stipulate as under:

“2(iii) Normal tenure from Asst Comdt to DIG would be 03 years. No officer should be allowed to continue for more than a period of 03 years at a

stretch except Training Institution/Intelligence Set-up/Parliament Duty Group/Special Duty Group/Signals/Legal Cells and CoBRA. The tenure of

officer posted in Training

Institution/Intelligence Set-up/Parliament Duty Group/Special Duty Group/Signals/Legal Cells and CoBRA would be 04 years, 2(xvii) Cut off date for

Reckoning tenure for transfer would 31st March.â€​

[7] On a perusal of the impugned transfer order, it is seen that the name of the petitioner appears in Part-II at Serial No.3, while the fifth

respondent’s name appears at Serial No.11 in Part-I. On a further perusal of the impugned transfer order, it is also seen that promoting the fifth

respondent as DIG, he was posted at Group Centre, Imphal, where the petitioner is presently serving and transferred the petitioner to Range, Nagpur.

[8] As stated supra, the Standing Order No.7 of 2014 stipulates that the normal tenure from Assistant Commandant to DIG would be three years. It is

not in dispute that since 28.5.2018, the petitioner is serving as DIG Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal and his tenure of three years would come to an end

on 28.5.2021,

[9] When the Standing Order dated 24.11.2014 in respect of transfer policy for GOs (Executive) and Medical Officers is in existence and as per the

Standing Order, the tenure of the petitioner in the present place of posting come to an end only on 28.5.2021, it is the bounden duty of the third

respondent to mention the reason for transfer in the order of transfer. However, in the instant case, the third respondent has failed to mention the

reason for transfer. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned transfer order issued in violation of the Standing

Order No.7 of 2014 and in violation of the service jurisprudence and also without application of mind are merit acceptance.

[10] This Court is of the view that the petitioner has been transferred prematurely from Group Centre, Imphal to Range, Nagpur. That apart, nothing

has been indicated in the remarks column of the transfer order as to the reason for transfer of the petitioner and in fact, the remarks column of the

transfer order kept blank.

[11] It appears that after issuance of the impugned transfer order, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 31.12.2020 seeking to defer his

transfer till normal tenure at Imphal setting out his personal grievances and one of the grievances stated in the representation is, his wife was suffering

from PMS illness and undergoing treatment for the said ailment. Accordingly to the petitioner, the said representation has not been considered by the

respondent authorities till date.

[12] At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent authorities submitted that with regard to matters of transfer/posting, the interest of

administration has to be given primacy and personal difficulties, if any are subservient to it. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is lawful and there

is no irregularity in it.

[13] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the impugned transfer order was issued, no movement order has been issued and no

charge has been given to the fifth respondent till date and that the petitioner is still remaining in the DIGP, Group Centre, Langjing, Imphal. According

to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order has not been acted upon till date.

[14] Drawing to the attention of the Court to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.484 of 2018, dated 6.10.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court passed an order directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent authorities

and also directed the respondent authorities therein to consider the representation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would suffice

if the said direction is issued in this case also. The learned counsel for the respondent authorities has no serious objection on the submission so made

by the learned counsel for the petitioner for a direction to give fresh representation.

[15] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made by of the learned counsels for the parties and also

in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

i) The writ petition is disposed by directing the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the respondent authorities within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

ii) On such receipt of the representation, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and pass orders, within a period of eight weeks thereafter,

after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

iii) Till the representation is considered by the respondent authorities as stated above, the impugned transfer order 30.12.2020 in respect of the

petitioner and the fifth respondent shall not be given effect to.

iv) No costs.