IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3805 of 2008 Between: 1 N.C. Subba Rao S/o. Adhisheshu, Hindu Type-II, STPM, Railway Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Ch. Anjayneyulu S/o. Subramanyam, Hindu Type-I, STPM, Railway Colony, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Y. Rama Rao S/o. Y. Govindu (Late) R/o.C/o.B. Pothu Raju, Pasuputhota, 3rd Line, Madhuranagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, S.C. Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 The Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, S.C. Railway Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada,Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent authorities in transferring the petitioners from Vijaywada Division to Nanded Division and Guntakal Divisions vide Force Order No. 17/08 dt. 18-2-2008 and consequential Divisional Order No. 8/08 dt. 18-2-2008 of the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in Vijayawada Division and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.ASHOK KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3805 of 2008 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is working as Driver Grade-I, and the petitioners 2 and 3 are working as Head Constables in the Railway Protection Force. Through Divisional Order No.8 of 2008, dated 18-02-2008, the 2nd respondent transferred the petitioners 1 and 3 to Nanded, and Petitioner No.2 to Guntakal Divisions, on administrative grounds. The petitioners assail the order of transfer on several grounds. It is stated that the transfers are punitive and vindictive in nature, and that they have been effected only with a view to accommodate certain individuals. It is pleaded that there is no post of Driver, Grade-I at Nanded Division, to accommodate the 1st petitioner; the children of the 2nd petitioner are studying in various institutions, and that the 3rd petitioner is a Cooperative Divisional Secretary of Vijayawada Division. Certain other grounds are also urged. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed, stating that the transfer was effected on administrative grounds. The basis of the transfers is said to be a report submitted by the 2nd respondent dated 18-02-208. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Railway Protection Force (for short ‘the Force’), issued Standing Order No.70 of 2004, prescribing guidelines to be observed, in the matter of transfer of the employees, and that the transfer of the petitioners is contrary to the same. He contends that when the transfers are effected on the basis of the inquiry report, it becomes punitive, and the same can be permitted only after a departmental inquiry is conducted. He places reliance upon the judgments of this Court in J. Ravinder v. Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.[1]; J. Ramachandra Rao v. A.P. State Co- operative Union[2] and Asu Singh v. State of Rajasthan[3]. Sri J. Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that even under the Standing Order, the administrative transfers can be effected before the completion of the ordinary term of stay, and that there exist valid reasons for transferring the petitioners to the respective places. He contends that a discreet inquiry revealed that the petitioners are resorting to acts of indiscipline, and have, in fact, published anonymous letters, scandalizing the senior officers of the Force, at Vijayawada. The 1st petitioner was posted to Vijayawada Division in February 2007, and petitioners 2 and 3, much earlier thereto. Under Clause (3) of the Standing Order 70 of 2004, the duration of ordinary stay of the members of the Force is indicated. It ranges from 2 to 5 years, depending on the class of the employees. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not complete their ordinary tenure. However, Clause (2) enables the administration, to transfer the members of the Force, before completion of the term, depending on the exigency of service, or administrative reasons. The clause reads as under: “Transfer of members of the Force may be ordered from one place to any other place in India in the exigencies of service or for administrative reasons or to avoid local entanglements of such members or for any such other consideration. Transfers may also be made ‘on request’ on humanitarian grounds”. In the impugned order itself, it was clearly mentioned that the transfer of the petitioners is on administrative grounds. Even while conceding the freedom to an employer to transfer its employees to various places, in the interests of administration, and recognizing the principle that transfer is an incidence of service, the Courts insist on transparency and objectivity in the process. Though the guidelines governing the transfers in an organization are directory in nature, deviation from them, must be justified on valid grounds. If a transfer is otherwise untenable, and if there are no supporting factual basis, it cannot be sustained merely by branding it as on administrative grounds. The process of evaluating such grounds is, however, a little bit delicate. If the allegations against an employee is serious enough, they must entail in disciplinary action. On the other hand, if they are trivial, they cannot constitute the basis to displace any employee, before he completes the normal tenure. It is only in the cases that fall in between these two situations, that can sustain the transfer on administrative grounds. The transfers, in the instant case, were effected on the basis of an inquiry report dated 23-01-2008, submitted by the 2nd respondent. The pamphlet was widely circulated, making anonymous allegations against one Mr.Sarat Balu, IPF/Reader, at Vijayawada. The nature of inquiry undertaken in the matter and the backgrounds of the petitioners was indicated in the report. The concluding paragraphs read as under: “…[A]ll the above three staff (petitioners) have got intimate relations by virtue of their common back ground and they play active role in Association politics and other collective matters. They reportedly sat together in cash office box room consumed liquor and had hot discussions against IPF/R Sarat Babu on several occasions. Sri N.C.Subba Rao, ASI Driver by virtue of his working in this office acted as a covert and supplied the information in a distorted manner. After giving a considerable time gap, all the above three staff (petitioners) conspired together and reportedly engineered the instant anonymous pamphlet tarnishing the image of the Force before other officers. It is seriously and strongly felt that unscrupulous elements and black sheep like above staff should not be left scot-free in a disciplined Force like RPF. This practice of sending anonymous complaints with malicious allegations out of personal grudge is highly unwarranted, objectionable and it hinders enforcing of discipline. Such activities if left unchecked will project poor image of administration and badly demoralize the loyal and hard working staff. Therefore, intervention of CSC/SC is solicited by way of shifting the following staff to far off places away from this division to set an example and to deter potential petitioners indulging in such unfair and nefarious practices”. From this, it cannot be said that there was no basis for transferring the petitioners. The impugned orders squarely fit into clause (2) of the Standing Order. In the judgments relied upon by the leaned counsel for the petitioners, detailed discussion was undertaken about the nature of powers, that are to be exercised by the authorities, while effecting transfers. There is nothing to indicate in the judgments, that an authority does not have the power to effect the transfer of his subordinates on administrative grounds. Though initiation of disciplinary proceedings is one of the alternatives, the situation cannot be permitted to drift further, by retaining the employees, facing the allegations, at the same place. Continuance of such employees in the same place, even where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated; would certainly cut into the efficacy of administration, and lead to worsening of situation. The petitioners have already joined stations, to which they have been transferred. If they face any difficulty, in those places, they can certainly make representations, as provided for under the Standing Order, and the same can be considered by the respondents. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, upholding the orders of transfer. It is, however, left open to the petitioners to make representations, strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders, and as and when they are made, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01-04-2008. Note: Mark L.R. copies. (B/O) KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] 1994 (2) APLJ 225 (HC) [2] 1993(3) SLR 1 [3] 1983(3) SLR 783