THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.26061 OF 2009 Dated: 10.12.2009 Between: V. Rao, CISF Constable No.884525259 …. Petitioner And 1.Union of India, rep. by its Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Sector Head-quarters, CHPT, Chennai., and 2 others. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.26061 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). While working at Visakhapatnam Port Trust, by order dated 30.09.2009 he was transferred to CISF Unit, B.H.E.L. (EDN.) Bangalore. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23166 of 2001 contending that the order of transfer was contrary to the Circular Instructions dated 11.6.2008. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner had already made a representation ventilating his grievance, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 3.11.2009 with a direction to the 1st respondent herein - Inspector General, CISF - to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks and till such time to maintain status quo as on that date. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 18.11.2009 holding as under : “In accordance with the directions contained in the judgment order dated 03.11.2009, I have gone through the representation dated 02.10.2009, submitted by the petitioner and records related to the case. His posting to CISF unit BHEL (EDN) Bangalore was ordered due to his undesirable activities which caused administrative problems at VPT Vizag and the individual has already completed more than 04 years service at VPT Vizag and over due for shifting to another Unit/station from that Unit as per the existing Posting policy. It is not feasible to retain him in the same Unit as his activities is detrimental to the discipline of the Unit and moral of other member of the Force. Hence, his request for deferment for a period of one year cannot be accepted.” Challenging the said order dated 18.11.2009, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s retention at Visakhapatnam on the ground of alleged undesirable activities of the petitioner amounts to punishment and is illegal since admittedly no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the said allegations. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of this Court in J. RAVINDER v. REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, KARIMNAGAR[1] and J. RAMACHANDRA RAO v. A.P. STATE COOPERATIVE UNION[2]. The fact that the petitioner has already completed more than four years of service at Visakhapatnam Port Trust and overdue for transfer to a different unit as per the transfer policy of CISF is not in dispute. Admittedly the transfer was ordered on 30.09.2009 in the normal course due to exigencies of service. However, the Circular dated 11.06.2008 entitles the employees of CISF to make a request for retention on the grounds of self-sickness, sickness of family members or education of the children. Such grievance petition was made by the petitioner on the ground that his son is studying X class at Visakhapatnam and therefore his transfer may be deferred for a period of one year. The said request was rejected under the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. It is true that one of the reasons assigned while rejecting the petitioner’s request for retention at Visakhapatnam Port Trust is that his alleged undesirable activities were detrimental to the discipline of the Unit. However, that by itself does not render his transfer dated 30.09.2009 punitive. As noticed above, the petitioner has already completed four years of service at Visakhapatnam Port Trust and his transfer dated 30.09.2009 has been effected in the normal course as per transfer policy of CISF. However, his request for deferment of transfer for a period of one year has been rejected alleging that his retention is the same Unit was not feasible as his activities were detrimental to the discipline of the Unit. It is true that there was no notice to the petitioner about the said allegations and no enquiry was conducted. However, the same does not in any way vitiate the transfer order dated 30.09.2009. In my considered opinion, the transfer dated 30.09.2009 was made in the normal course and in the exigencies of service and there is absolutely no justifiable reason to presume any mala fides or arbitrariness. The decisions cited by the learned douse for the petitioner which were rendered in a different context have no application to the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for deferment of transfer cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 10.12.2009 Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs [1] 1994 (2) APLJ 225 (HC) [2] 1993 (3) SLR 1