IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11348 of 2009 Between: M. Srinivasulu S/o. Penchalaiah Vijayawada Division, S.C. Railway, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Security Commissioner R.P.F., S.C. Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 The Senior Divisional Security Commissioner R.P.F., S.C. Railway Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Divisional Order No.51/2009, dt. 2-6-2009 (Letter No.B/XP.676/GT/2009, dt. 2-6-2009) issued in terms of the force order No.94/2009, dt. 28-5-2009 of the 1st respondent transferring and posting the petitioner at Guntakal Division is arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and also in violation of Rule 153 (4) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.CKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.11348 of 2009 ORDER: The writ petition has been instituted by a Railway Protection Force Constable questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Vijayawada transferring him from Bitragunta to Guntakal Division against an existing vacancy in the same Pay Band and Grade Pay. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Vijayawada has power to subject the petitioner to a transfer to any place within the division and that he has no power to transfer the petitioner to another division. It is submitted that the petitioner has been working in Vijayawada division at Bitragunta and therefore, he could not have been transferred and posted to Guntakal division by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner. It is also contended that the petitioner is currently facing disciplinary proceedings and the next date of hearing of the disciplinary proceedings is only fixed to 16.06.2009 and hence, in terms of Rule 153(4) of the Railway Protection Rules, he cannot be subjected to a transfer. I have heard Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. The contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner are unsustainable, for, the orders of the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Vijayawada have clearly indicated that in terms of the Chief Security Commissioner, Secunderabad’s Force order No.94 of 2009, dated 28.05.2009, the petitioner has been subjected to a transfer. What the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Vijayawada did was to re-transmit the orders passed by the Chief Security Commissioner transferring the petitioner to Guntakal division. Therefore, it is not the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner at Vijayawada who subjected him to transfer. But the order in fact has been passed by the Chief Security Commissioner of the South Central Railway at Secunderabad. It can hardly be doubted about the power of the Chief Security Commissioner to subject an employee to transfer from one division to another division. Rule 153(4) of the Railway Protection Rules is an enabling provision for the disciplinary authority to ensure that personnel who are facing disciplinary proceedings are not shifted from out of his disciplinary control. It is not an embargo against any order of transfer. The Rule 153(4) cannot be so construed. Even though the writ petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings, he will not suffer prejudice because he is bound to be detailed whenever the disciplinary proceedings are taken up, on duty. Therefore, the order of transfer which is purely an administrative exercise cannot be interfered with. It is for the Chief Security Commissioner, to exercise the discretion as to whether the petitioner should be continued in service at Bitragunta or in the interest of the organization, he should be transferred to some other place. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly, dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ________________________ Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Dt.11.06.2009. VGB