Delhi High Court
Preeti Hiranwal vs Union Of India And Anr. on 22 December, 2017
$~1 & 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11539/2017 & CM Nos.47005/2017 (for stay), 47006/2017
(for exemption)
PREETI HIRANWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Abha Malhotra, Advocate for R-1
& 2.
+ W.P.(C) 11568/2017 & CM Nos.47143/2017 (for stay), 47144/2017
(for exemption)
DR. CHANDRA PRAKASH MEENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.Surender Singh Hooda, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Abha Malhotra, Advocate for R-1
& 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 22.12.2017
1. The petitioners in both the petitions seek quashing and setting aside of
their respective posting/transfer orders dated 29.11.2017 and 30.11.2017 in
W.P.(C) No.11539/2017 and W.P.(C) No.11568/2017, respectively.
2. At the outset, we have asked learned counsel for the petitioners to
explain the need to file the photographs collectively marked as Annexure
P-5 (colly) in W.P.(C) No.11539/2017 and Annexure P-4 (colly) in W.P.(C)
No.11568/2017. His submission is that the said photographs had to be filed
to establish that they do not pertain to either of the petitioners in the present
petitions, but relate to third parties. We are not inclined to accept the said
submission. At best, the petitioners could have placed the said photographs,
that are patently sleazy and scandalous, in a sealed cover for the perusal of
the Court. Similarly, the photographs sought to be handed over across the
board by learned counsel for the petitioners for substantiating his submission
that some indecent video clips/whatsapp chats have been wrongly attributed
to the petitioners and have been made viral on the social media, ought to
have also been filed in a sealed cover. No such procedure has been followed
by learned counsel for the petitioners which, in our view, is most
inappropriate.
3. At this stage, Dr.Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioners tenders an
unqualified apology and assures us that he shall be more careful in the
future. In view of the apology tendered by learned counsel for the
petitioners, we shall let the matter rest here. However, directions are issued
to the Registry to place the above annexures in a sealed cover.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11539/2017 who is a Mahila Constable
in the BSF, was posted at Ajnala, District Amritsar while the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.11568/2017 was working as the Commandant in the 70th
Batallion, BSF, Ajnala, District Amritsar, Punjab. They have both prayed
for quashing of their respective transfer orders on the ground that the said
orders are stigmatic in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.11539/2017 has been posted out to 110 Batallion, BSF, which is
presently at Gauhati, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11568/2017 has been
posted to the Sector Headquarters, BSF, Aizwal. He further submits that on
30.11.2017, a Staff Court of Inquiry was initiated on the basis of a complaint
dated 28.11.2017, alleging inter alia that the petitioners herein are involved
in a sex scandal and contemporaneously, both of them have been posted out
of their present places of posting, which action according to him, is punitive
in nature.
6. We had passed over the matter on the first call to enable Ms.Malhotra,
learned counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions from the
department. On pass over, she submits on instructions that the Court of
inquiry on the basis of the complaint received by the respondent No.2/BSF,
shall be conducted at Ajnala, District Amritsar. She further states that the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11568/2017 has remained posted with the same
battalion ever since the year 2005, though he had moved to different
locations with the same battalion over the past few years and he was in any
event, due for a posting out of the said battalion. She submits that it is for
this reason that he has been posted to the Sector Headquarters, BSF, Aizwal.
7. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11539/2017 is concerned,
learned counsel for the respondent submits that by now she has completed a
tenure of 2 ½ years at Ajnala, District Amritsar, Punjab and has been posted
to Gauhati, in terms of the impugned transfer order.
8. Having regard to the fact that both the petitioners would be required
to appear in the inquiry initiated by the department that shall be conducted at
Ajnala District, Amritsar, we have inquired from learned counsel for the
respondents as to whether it is feasible to reconsider the transfer order
passed in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11539/2017. In response
to this Court's query, Ms.Malhotra states on instructions, that the
respondents shall issue a fresh posting order in respect of the said petitioner,
by posting her at any place in the Western Theatre.
9. In response to the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioners that while the petitioners have been punitively transferred by the
respondent, no action has been taken against Shri Manoj Kumar, Second-in-
Commandant, even though a complaint against him dated 04.12.2017, was
submitted by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11539/2017 to the Director
General, BSF, learned counsel for the respondents states on instructions that
apart from an inquiry that has already been initiated against the said officer,
in terms of the order dated 05.10.2017 (Annexure P-11 enclosed with
W.P.(C) No.11568/2017), a separate inquiry shall also be initiated against
him with regard to his alleged complicity in the present case, in view of the
allegations levelled against him by the petitioners.
10. It is hoped and expected that if in the course of the inquiries that are
being conducted/proposed to be conducted by the respondents, any more
leads showing the involvement of any other person(s) come to light, then the
scope of the said inquiries shall be suitably expanded to include those leads
and further appropriate action taken in that regard.
11. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, we are
of the opinion that no interference is called for in the transfer order passed in
respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11568/2017. However, the transfer
order dated 29.11.2017, passed in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C)
11539/2017 is quashed and set aside with directions issued to the
respondents to issue a fresh transfer order, by posting her at any place in the
Western theatre. Till a fresh transfer order is passed, the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.11539/2017 shall remain posted at Ajnala, District Amritsar,
Punjab.
12. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of along with the pending
applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
DECEMBER 22, 2017
gm
