Md.Ghouse v. The Director General, CISF Head Quarters, C.G.O.’s Complex, Block No.13, Lodhi Road & Ors.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.12871 OF 2012 ORDER: The petitioner is a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the BHEL Unit, Hyderabad. He was transferred under proceedings dated 28.03.2012 to the Northern Sector and was posted at Uttar Pradesh. This transfer is the cause for grievance in the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he has a son who is currently studying 10th Class and as per rules, employees whose children were studying 10th Class were not to be transferred. He claimed that he had submitted representations in this regard requesting that he should not be transferred from the BHEL Unit at Hyderabad but despite the same, the impugned proceedings came to be issued. He further stated that other similarly situated employees whose wards were studying 10th Class were retained but his case alone was not considered. He therefore prayed for a declaration that his transfer under the impugned proceedings dated 28.03.2012 was illegal and to set aside the same. The Commandant of the CISF Unit at BHEL, Hyderabad, filed a counter stating that the petitioner had completed 12 years of home zone tenure. He pointed out that as per Section 15 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 officers and members of the force were liable to be transferred to any place within the country. He further stated that the petitioner’s representation dated 30.03.2012 seeking to be retained at Hyderabad on the ground that his son was studying 10th Class was forwarded to the DIG, CISF, South Zone, who, in turn, sent it to the IG, CISF, South Sector. In the mean while, the petitioner was posted at Obra, Uttar Pradesh, under order dated 17.04.2012. Taking the petitioner’s representation into consideration and as his son was studying 10th Class at Hyderabad, the Commandant stated that the petitioner was permitted to retain his Quarter at Hyderabad and proceedings dated 30.05.2012 were said to have been issued permitting the petitioner to retain the said Quarter till the end of April,

2013. The Commandant denied that similarly placed employees whose wards were studying 10th Class were not subjected to transfer and that the petitioner alone was discriminated. The Commandant concluded by stating that the petitioner’s transfer was a zonal transfer which was effected in terms of the policy of the CISF. In his reply to the above counter, the petitioner reiterated that there were departmental instructions to the effect that an employee whose child/ward was studying 10th Class should not be subjected to transfer. The petitioner pointed out that he had mentioned specific cases of similarly situated persons who were not transferred but the counter was silent as to the same. He therefore reiterated his prayer to be retained at Hyderabad. Though the petitioner stated that there were departmental instructions to the effect that an employee with a child studying 10th Class should not be transferred, no such material is placed on record. The counter filed by the Commandant of the CISF is silent as to this aspect. The burden would therefore be upon the petitioner to produce the relevant departmental instructions to fortify his contention. Having failed to do so, the petitioner has to take the consequences. Further, the letter dated 30.04.2012 addressed by the petitioner to the Commandant of the CISF Unit at BHEL, Hyderabad, reflects that the Commandant had convinced and advised him to proceed to the new place of posting at Obra, Uttar Pradesh, and that the petitioner had himself requested that he may be permitted to retain the Quarter at the CISF Complex at Hyderabad so that he could leave his family behind to facilitate his son to study for and appear at the 10th Class examinations at Hyderabad itself, so as to avoid hindrance to his education. Acting upon this request, the CISF graciously allowed the petitioner to retain the Quarter at Hyderabad upto the end of April,

2013. The proceedings dated 30.05.2012 issued by the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, BHEL, Hyderabad, substantiates this. Transfer being an incident of service and discipline being of paramount importance in a uniformed service such as the CISF, it is not for this Court to interfere in a case of this nature unless patent illegality is established. The petitioner, except for stating that there are some departmental instructions which are relevant to his transfer, did not choose to place the same before this Court. In the absence thereof and in the light of the facts obtaining in the case, the action of the CISF in permitting the petitioner to retain his Quarter at Hyderabad despite his transfer to Uttar Pradesh must be categorized as utmost kind and sympathetic. Pertinent to note, even if any departmental instructions restricted the transfer of an employee with a child studying 10th Class, the object thereof would be to see that the child’s education is not hampered at the crucial stage of writing the 10th Class examination. As the petitioner was permitted to retain his Quarter at Hyderabad where his son is studying 10th Class, there would be no hindrance to his son’s education. The objective behind the departmental instructions, if any, is adequately achieved by permitting the petitioner to retain his Quarter at Hyderabad. The petitioner therefore cannot insist upon his being continued at Hyderabad. The Writ Petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. WPMP No.16086 of 2012 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs. ____________________ 28TH AUGUST, 2012. VGSR SANJAY KUMAR, J.