IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16429 of 2010 1. Jay Prakash Singh son of Late Ram Ashish Singh resident of Village + P.O. Khabshi, P.S. Baniapur, Distt. Chapra 2. Kamal Kant Kamal Son of Late Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village +P.O.- Lai, P.S. Bihta, Distt. Patna 3. Hitendra Kumar Son of Sri Madhusudan Singh, resident of Village + P.O.- Mano, P.S. Suryagarha, Distt. Lakhisarai 4. Deepak Kumar Son of Suresh Prasad Sharma, resident of Village Telarh, P.S. Agiaon Bazar, Distt. Bhojpur 5. Jitendra Kumar Son of Late Akhilesh Sharma, resident of Pandeypur, P.S. Bihta, Distt. Patna 6. Gauri Kant Pandey, son of Shri Siddhi Sadan Pandey resident of village + P.O.- Valua, P.S. – Pakri Brama, Distt. Nawada Versus 1. The Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Deputy Director, Security (establishment), Railway Board, New Delhi 3. Staff Officer to The Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Central Railway, Hajipur 4. The Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, East Central Railway, Danapur For the Petitioners :Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Advocate For the Railway :Mr. Madhu Prasun, Advocate ----------- 02/ 29.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the East Central Railway. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the transfer order passed by the Staff Officer to Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F. as also the consequential divisional orders, whereunder they have been transferred from Danapur Division to Hajipur, Sonepur and Samastipur Division. The aforesaid transfer orders are contained in Annexure-2 series 2 and are placed with the writ petition from pages 24 to 31. 3. Counsel for the petitioners assailed the said order on the ground that Staff Officer to Chief Security Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the transfer order, the order was required to have been issued by the Additional, Divisional, Deputy Security Commissioner. In this connection, he has relied upon Rule 25 with Schedule- II of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as also on the Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Shyam Behari Pandey and others Vrs. Director General, Railway Protection Force and others, reported in (2007) 3 Cal. Law Times 350. 4. Perusal of Rule 25 read with Schedule II of the Rules indicates that thereunder the administrative power of the Superior Officers of the Force has been vested in Chief, Additional, Divisional, Deputy Security Commissioners, all enjoy superior administrative powers over the constabulary of the Force. The impugned orders, Annexure-2 series having been passed by the Staff Officer with the approval of the Chief Security Commissioner who has administrative power over the constables serving in the Force the transfer 3 orders cannot be held to be without jurisdiction on the ground that the same has been passed by the Staff Officer of Chief Security Commissioner. I do not find any illegality in the impugned transfer orders, Annexure-2 series. 5. Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that mere writing the words administrative ground in the transfer order does not ipso facto mean that there was administrative exigency to transfer the petitioners. The cause constituting the administrative exigency should have been indicated in the impugned transfer orders. 6. I regret not to accept such submission. Once the Chief Security Commissioner has approved the transfer of the petitioners on administrative ground, the facts constituting the administrative ground must have been discussed in the file and sufficiency of the ground is beyond the scrutiny by the High Court. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)