\ @ £5 W“ IN THE HIGH COURT OF G-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.?3 W.P . NO. .J/LOg /2002 PETITIONER Gi rdhari Lal Samey Vs. :wé RESPONDENTS : 1. Ministry of Home Affairs / Central industrial Security Force 2 . Commanaent C.I .S.F. KorBa (C.G.) \93 ’ J cfi T 3. Dy. Commandant asF. Korba .~'\*f.§és~%*f. v 4 . I .G . .4- CLSE H/Q-E/E Compuund Bori road, Patiputra Patna, Bihar 5 . Chi ef Di rector CISF, 6G0 Compl§ Lodhi Road New Delhi . K WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226y227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF~INDIA. 4\ . r: XI-HC—22 7;? Wm WWWP.HQ$E 2001 25.3.2006 $mt.Renu Kochar, counsgl far the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, cot nse! for the respondents. Arguments heard. Order dictated as foHows : The petitioner, who wa working as a Cgnstabie in C.l.$.F, Unit, N.T.P.Q.Korba (CG), punishment order as well as 1: an5fer order, flied as Annexures P-2 and P-3. A3 stated in the writ p tition, the petitioner, vide the aforesaid order dated 23.5.2002, was tr neferred from C.l.S;F. Unit, N.T.P.C. Korba (CG) to NALCO Angui issa). About the tranefer, the only pieading taken in the writ peti ion is vide para 6.10, in which, it is mentioned that the oetitioner w s illegally and arbitrarily transferred to a distant and remote place in Q issa and the above transfer was only a part of tout play by the Com endant. it has further been pieaded that the order was passed wit .out paying regard to the will of the petitioner and on these grounds it is required to be quashed. So far as interference the Court in a matter of transfer is concerned, the law is well settled. The apex Court while dealing with the matter of Kendriza Vidzzr $anghatan l/s. Qamodar Prasad Pandey reported in 2004 AIR SCW Pg.5563 referring to the various decisions has observed vide para 4 as follows : "Transfer wnich is an incidence of service is not to be interfered‘with by the Courts uniess it is shown toioe r b, XI-HC-22 EW,W,W Wm mm¢igadi9fxw 1H 2009, dearly arbitrary or visi d by malaflde or infraction of any prescribéd norms of nci§les governing the transfer (See Ambani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orrisa, 1995 {SuppO 4 SCC 169). Unless the orde of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in vioiation of operative guideiines, the Court cannot interfere with it (See Union of India Vs, S.L.Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444). o should be transferred and posted where is a matter fort e administrative authority to decide. Uniess the order of tansfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of o erative any guideiines or rules the Courts should not ord narily inteifere with it in Union of indie a others Vs. Jan' rdan Debanath a an£(2b04)'4 scc 245 it was observed as follows: ”No G vernment servant or employee of a public uncl rtaking has any legal right to be posted fore er at any one particular place or ptace of his choice since transfer of a particular employee a pointed to the ciass or category of transferable posts from one plaoe to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessarvt o in public interest and efficiency in the public dministration. Unless an order of transfer is hown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions ohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or th Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such ders as a matter of routine, as though t were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/m nagement, as against such orders passed i the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position wa highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectri Power Corpn. Ltd. \Is. Shri Bhagwan, i 001) s scc 574". i $ p i e h r r h n XI—HC—22 tran5fer, has no merit and the sjme is dismissed. Though, it is stated that the tran$fer was arbitrary, but it ha5 net i been pointed out as to how it is arbitrary and how it infringed the right of the petitioner. it has not been shown that it was a malafide transfer neither it has been shown that the eame has been done against any policy governing the transfer. The petition so far as it reiates to challenging the order of So far as other relief, regarding the otder passed by the discipiinary authority Vide Anne. ure P—Z is concerned. admittedly this was an appealable order and n appeal could have been preferred against this order. Learned oounsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would tile an appeal against thi order and she should be permitted, to withdraw this petition) so far as reiief No.1 in reiation to this punishment order is concerned with a iiberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority. This prayer, concernedt relief No.1, is not opposed by learned i counsel for Union of India. The same is allowed. The petition, so far as i relates to relief No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid lib arty granted in favour of the petitioner. The petition stands disp sed of. , Sd/- ‘Sunil Kurnar Sinha .1 Judge I