Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 12 November, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 8982/2020 & CM No.28997/2020 (for interim direction)
SANJAY KUMAR .... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The petitioner, a Water Carrier in the respondents Railway Protection
Force (RPF) and posted at Delhi since the year 2017, has filed this petition
th
impugning the order dated 11 September, 2020 of his transfer to Srinagar as
th
well as the order dated 18 September, 2020 modifying the earlier order and
transferring the petitioner, instead of Srinagar, to Chandigarh. The challenge
to the transfer is made on the ground of the same being mala fide .
2. It is the case of the petitioner, that (i) while posted at Delhi, the
petitioner has been having strained relations with his immediate superior
th
officer, which lead to issuance of charge memo dated 27 November, 2018;
(ii) the Inquiry Officer (IO) found the charges to have been proved against
th
the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority, on 27 June, 2019 imposed
penalty of stepping down the pay of the petitioner by three stages in the time
scale of pay for a period of one year; (iii) the Departmental Appeal preferred
st
by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21 July, 2020; (iv) the
W.P.(C) No.8982/2020 Page 1 of 5
petitioner continued to be harassed on the basis of false allegations; (v) one
of the complainants whose complaint formed the basis of the charge memo
th th
dated 27 November, 2018, gave an affidavit dated 9 March, 2019 stating
that his complaint against the petitioner was false and that he was tutored by
the immediate superior of the petitioner with whom the petitioner had shared
strained relations since beginning; (vi) the petitioner was / is being
victimized on account of the personal bias of his immediate superior officer
against him; (vii) the petitioner however accepted the penalty without any
demur; (viii) however the immediate superior officer of the petitioner was
still not satisfied and wanted to punish the petitioner further; (ix) vide order
th
dated 11 September, 2020, the petitioner was transferred to Srinagar;
though the order stated that the transfer was on administrative grounds,
however perusal of the contents of the subsequent correspondence reflects
that the said order was issued to punish the petitioner for the second time for
the same wrong, owing to personal bias and vendetta; (x) the petitioner had
already served at Srinagar, a hard area, from 2014 to 2017; (xi) vide order
th
dated 14 September, 2020, the petitioner was relieved from Delhi and
directed to join at Srinagar; (xii) the petitioner was in the midst of family
problems because of his one child being two years old and the other child
being just three months old; (xiii) the petitioner approached another senior
officer, for cancellation of the transfer order but who told the petitioner that
he had to suffer the consequences of his misbehaviour with his colleagues
and superior officers; (xiv) the petitioner was compelled to submit a letter
th
dated 14 September, 2020, seeking apology for the misbehaviour which had
already culminated in the penalty and making a request for transfer to
Ambala in lieu of Kashmir Valley; (xv) the said letter of the petitioner was
W.P.(C) No.8982/2020 Page 2 of 5
forwarded by the aforementioned senior officer approached by the petitioner,
recommending the change of transfer sought by the petitioner; (xvi) the
th
petitioner thereafter vide order dated 18 September, 2020, was relieved
from joining at Srinagar and directed to join at Chandigarh; (xvii) the same
immediate superior officer with whom the petitioner had strained relation,
was otherwise also repeatedly failing the petitioner in the driving test and not
forwarding the appeals against the failure preferred by the petitioner,
compelling the petitioner to file W.P.(C) No.12520/2019 in this Court and of
th
which notice was issued on 27 November, 2019 and which is still pending;
and, (xviii) the said immediate superior officer with whom the petitioner had
strained relation has also humiliated the petitioner and the petitioner was
constrained to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) against him, of offenses under Sections
326, 341, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 alongwith Section 3
of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and which complaint is also pending consideration.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Annexure-P5,
th
being the letter dated 14 September, 2020 of the petitioner, apologizing for
his earlier misconduct and requesting for transfer to Ambala instead of
Kashmir Valley and has contended, that the petitioner was forced to write the
same and the very fact that the petitioner apologized therein shows that the
transfer was punitive.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has thereafter drawn our attention to the
th
letter dated 14 September, 2020 of the senior officer approached by the
petitioner for change of transfer and who recommended that the petitioner,
instead of Kashmir Valley, may be posted to some other division, and has
W.P.(C) No.8982/2020 Page 3 of 5
contended that the same also mentions the apology tendered by the petitioner
and this again shows the initial transfer order to Kashmir to be vindictive.
5. Attention is lastly drawn to the orders issuing notice of the writ
petition aforesaid preferred by the petitioner and the order of the Additional
Sessions Judge posting the private complaint filed by the petitioner for pre-
summoning evidence.
6. We are afraid, from none of the aforesaid documents, we are able to
make out a case of the transfer being mala fide . It is not as if the petitioner
has been transferred out, before the completion of normal tenure of posting
at a particular station. The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the
normal tenure at a particular station is of three years only and which the
petitioner, with respect to his posting at Delhi, has completed. As far as the
writ petition and the private complaint preferred by the petitioner are
concerned, the same will be decided on their own merits and merely because
the petitioner has preferred the same, does not mean that the transfer of the
petitioner becomes vindictive.
7. Rather, from the very fact that on request, the place of posting of the
petitioner has been changed from Kashmir Valley to Chandigarh, shows that
there is no vindictiveness or mala fides in the transfer of the petitioner and
that the transfer is not punitive.
8. As far as the plea of the petitioner, of the petitioner having been forced
th
to write the letter dated 14 September, 2020 and of the affidavit given by
the complainant, on whose complaint the petitioner was charged, are
concerned, they are again not in the domain of this writ petition and entail
disputed questions of fact which cannot be conveniently gone into in writ
jurisdiction. We are also of the view that once the petitioner has completed
W.P.(C) No.8982/2020 Page 4 of 5
his normal tenure at Delhi and the relationship between the petitioner and his
colleagues at Delhi has, according to the petitioner himself, been
acrimonious, the same alone amounts to an administrative reason for transfer
inasmuch as no organization can afford to have warring personnel in the
same office and which situation brings the entire working of that particular
office to a standstill. The situation is the same as quarrelling children, the
only recourse whereagainst is to separate them.
9. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that she is not very
sure that three years is the normal tenure.
10. No merit is found in the petition.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
NOVEMBER 12, 2020
‘gsr’..
W.P.(C) No.8982/2020 Page 5 of 5