D.K. Mallesh vs Union Of India & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 4213 Del

$~11

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 5195/2016 & CM No.21613/2016
       D.K. MALLESH                                    ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ANR                         ..... Respondents
                     Through : Ms. Arti Bansal, Advocate with
                     Mr. B.K. Rout, Pairvi Officer.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          ORDER

% 31.05.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is working on the post of a Head Constable (GD) with the respondent/CRPF, praying inter alia for quashing the Signal dated 12.5.2016, issued by the respondent transferring him from Tripura to Chattisgarh.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation dated 3.1.2016 to the Director General, CRPF praying inter alia that he be posted at his hometown at Karnataka due to the domestic problem explained by him therein (Annexure P-3). However, the said representation was turned down with a cryptic one line order dated 18.2.2016, duly communicated to him on 19.2.2016 (Annexure P-4).

3. Counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, states that the order in question has not been passed by the Directorate General, CRPF at Delhi but by the Southern Zone, Hyderabad. However, it is not disputed that the said order is a non-speaking order turning down his request on the ground that he is ineligible as per SO No.07/2015. She submits that at present, she does not have any instructions as to whether the Southern Zone has passed any detailed order, but if that is not so, then a detailed order shall be passed dealing with the submissions made in the representation by the petitioner and the same shall be communicated to him within two weeks from today. If a detailed order has been passed, then a copy thereof shall be furnished to the petitioner at the earliest.

4. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order passed by the respondents, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies, as per law.

5. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J MAY 31, 2016 sk