The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10738 of 2025 P. Sreenivasa Rao ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Swapna Kumar Ojha Union of India and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, Senior Panel Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Decision
ORDER 01.05.2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India-Opposite Parties (Railway). Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “Under the facts and circumstances stated above, it is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued quashing the Office order dated 28.05.2024 (Annex.1), office order rejection dtd.04.06.2024 dtd.13.01.2025 (Annex.9). (Annex.2) & order of If the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show Page 1 of 6. insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute. And further direction may be issued directing the Opp. Parties to transfer the petitioner to Waltair division as per his option in accordance with Directive no.58 under Annexure-4. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in R.P.F. on 12.04.2000. Thereafter, he was transferred to Waltair Division in the year 2003. While working as such, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable in year 2010. On 12.03.2024, the Petitioner was attached to Khurda Division. He further contended that on 04.04.2024, the Petitioner exercised his option for Vijayanagaram, Rayagada and Bobbin. However, without considering choice of posting, the Petitioner was transferred to Laxmipur Post vide order dated 06.04.2024. Though the Petitioner was transferred to Laxmipur Post, however he was not relieved. While this was the position, the Petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 23.04.2024. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner. On 04.06.2024, the Petitioner was transferred from CHR Post Waltair to DSCNL, Khurda Road Division vide order dated 04.06.2024 under Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On perusal of the writ petition, it further appears that the Petitioner submitted his representation to consider his case for transfer as per his option on 02.08.2024. Finally, Office Order dated 28.05.2024 was issued transferring the Petitioner from Waltair Division to Khurda Division. Page 2 of 6. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since the representation of the Petitioner dated 02.08.2024 was not duly considered by the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23588 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 08.10.2024 with a very clear and specific direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to the said writ petition, i.e. Inspector General (RPF), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of order dated 08.10.2024. Learned coordinate Bench had also directed that while considering the representation, the Opposite Party No.2 shall also take into consideration the Option Letter dated 04.04.2024 of the Petitioner under Annexure-3. 6. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although the coordinate Bench vide order dated 08.10.2024 directed the Opposite Party No.2, i.e. Inspector General (RPF), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar to consider the representation of the Petitioner vide order dated 08.10.2024, however the representation of the Petitioner has been disposed of by Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar and the representation has been rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned rejection order dated 13.01.2025 under Annexure-9, at the outset, contended that the Opposite Party No.2, i.e. Inspector General (RPF), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar has not passed the order as directed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.10.2024. He Page 3 of 6. further contended that no such office in the name of Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar exists under the East Coast Railway in Bhubaneswar. He further contended that transfer of the Petitioner is also contrary to the Rules- 93.9 and 153.4 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1987. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in the eye of law and, accordingly, the same should be quashed. 8. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India- Opposite Parties (Railway), on the other hand, referred to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties. At the outset he contended that it is a fact that no such office in the name of Senior Divisional Security Commissioner exists in East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, however the same should be construed as an order passed by the Senior DSC, RPF, Khurda. He further contended that the impugned order dated 13.1.2025 under Annexure-9 has been passed in compliance to the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23588 of 2024. He further submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-9 speaks that the same is a speaking and reasoned order. In such view of the matter, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India-Opposite Parties (Railway) contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality and there is no violation of order dated 08.10.2024 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition. Accordingly, it was submitted that the writ petition being devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. Page 4 of 6. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, further keeping in view the direction passed by this Court dated 08.10.2024 in the previous writ petition, this Court observes that in the previous writ petition, the learned coordinate Bench had directed the Inspector General (RPF), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar to consider the representation of the Petitioner. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the order dated 08.10.2024 with regard to the consideration of the representation of the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2. However, it is also admitted by the learned counsels appearing for the parties that the order dated 13.01.2025 under Annexure-9 has been admittedly passed by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, although it was accepted by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India-Opposite Parties (Railway) that description of the office has been incorrectly furnished in the impugned rejection order. 10. On a careful analysis of the aforesaid submission as well as the fact as is evident from the pleadings of the respective parties, this Court is of the view that the order dated 08.10.2024 passed in previous writ petition has not been carried out by the Opposite Party No.2- Inspector General (RPF), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 under Annexure-9 is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2-Inspector General (RPF), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar to consider the matter to consider the matter Page 5 of 6. afresh by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and the representation of the Petitioner be considered in accordance with the R.P.F. Rules, 1987 and be disposed of within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of this order within ten days from today. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Debasis ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 03-May-2025 15:24:40 Page 6 of 6.