Kerala High Court
Divyamol.R.S vs The Director General on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022/19TH SRAVANA, 1944
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2021 IN W.P(C).NO.18244/2021 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DIVYAMOL.R.S
AGED 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (MINISTERIAL - 073260253)
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.A-38, FACT TOWNSHIP,
ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-683 501.
BY ADV.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
BY ADV.SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CISF HEAD QUARTERS,
13 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.
2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (SOUTH SECTOR)
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CHPT CAMPUS,
CHENNAI, PIN-600 009.
3 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (SOUTH ZONE)
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, BASANT NAGAR,
CHENNAI, PIN-600 090.
4 THE GROUP COMMANDANT,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CISF GROUP HEAD
QUARTERS COCHIN, BLOCK-C, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, CSEZ P.O.,
COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-682 037.
5 THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT
CISF UNIT BPCL-KR, IRUMPANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 2 ::
PIN-682 309.
6 UNION OF INDIA.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI,PIN-110 003.
7 THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,NEW DELHI-110 001.
8 ANURAG SHARMA,
ASSISTANT COMMANDANT,CISF UNIT BPCL COCHIN,
ERNAKULAM,KERALA,PIN-682 309.
BY SRI.MANU S., ASG OF INDIA
BY ADV.SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.08.2022, THE COURT ON 10.08.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 3 ::
'C.R.'
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The facts of the instant case bring to the fore a classic instance
of how a litigant, with the help of clever lawyers, can successfully
tweak the law and the legal system in her favour, and avoid transfers
and postings that form an integral part of her conditions of service.
The appellant protagonist is an ASI/Clerk in the Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF) and she has managed to continue in the home
station at Kochi for nearly a decade, much to the chagrin and
exasperation of her employers who are charged with administering a
disciplined and uniformed force.
THE FACTS IN BRIEF:
2. The appellant joined the service of the CISF in the rank of
Head Constable/Clerk on 22.09.2007 under a compassionate
appointment scheme. Her father was a Naik in the CISF who died in
an ambush by armed militants, while on duty at Nagaland. She was
promoted as ASI/Clerk and posted in Cochin on 24.01.2008. She
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 4 ::
continued as such till 31.10.2013 and thereafter she was posted at the
CISF unit in Cochin Port Trust with effect from 1.11.2013. In June
2015, when she was transferred to Vishakapatnam by an order dated
06.06.2015, she approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.18515 of
2015 that was disposed with a direction to the respondents to consider
a representation preferred by her against the transfer. The
respondents considered her representation favourably and cancelled
the order of transfer by relying on the applicable guidelines for
transfer that envisaged, inter alia, that in cases where a husband and
wife were both in Central Government service, they had to be retained
in the same station as far as possible. She thus continued in Cochin till
2017.
3. It is significant that the appellant's husband is employed in
the Fertilisers & Chemicals (Travancore) Limited, a Central Public
Sector Undertaking that has offices only in Kerala, and hence if the
guidelines are treated as mandatory and invariable, the appellant can
never be transferred out of Cochin. By an order dated 16.03.2017, the
appellant was transferred to NTPC, Kudigi (Karnataka). She impugned
the said order through W.P(C).No.9392 of 2017 that was disposed with
a direction to the respondents to consider a representation that she
had preferred against the transfer. When the said representation came
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 5 ::
to be rejected by the respondents, she once again approached this
Court through W.P(C). No.16682 of 2017 contending inter alia that by
virtue of the specific provisions in the guidelines, she could not be
transferred to a station other than one where her husband was posted.
This time around, the Court found no reason to interfere with the
order of transfer, more so when she had been continuing in Kerala for
more than 8 years, and in the Cochin unit for more than 3 years and 8
months. The Court also found that no mala fides had been established
by the appellant and therefore the transfer order could not be
assailed, more so when it pertained to the transfer of an employee in a
disciplined force. The learned Judge, however, directed the
respondents to consider her case for a re-transfer to Cochin as and
when vacancies were available at the Cochin unit, after
accommodating the officers who were awaiting such transfers, without
waiting for the appellant to complete three years at the transferred
station.
4. The appellant thereafter joined service at Kudigi on 6.7.2017.
Immediately thereafter, however, the respondents considered her
request for re-transfer and posted her back at the BPCL unit in Cochin
by an order dated 22.09.2017. She reported for duty at the BPCL unit
with effect from 07.10.2017. Significantly, even during her three
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 6 ::
month tenure at Kudigi, she effectively worked there only for three
days, as the remaining period was covered by the leave and joining
time that she had availed during her posting there. It was while she
was working at the BPCL unit in Cochin that by the order dated
03.09.2021, impugned in the writ petition, she was transferred to the
CISF Unit attached to the ONGC in Narsapur (Andhra Pradesh).
THE CHALLENGE IN THE WRIT PETITION:
5. In the writ petition preferred by her, the challenge to the
transfer order was premised on the grounds that (i) as per the extant
guidelines, she was entitled to a protection from transfer outside of
her home state since she was offered appointment on compassionate
grounds (ii) the transfer order was punitive in nature in that it was in
response to a sexual harassment complaint that she had preferred
against the 8th respondent Assistant Commandant (iii) the transfer
order being issued mid-term and not as part of a general transfer
order, the respondents were obliged to furnish cogent reasons for the
untimely transfer (iv) as per the extant guidelines she was entitled to
be posted at the same station as her spouse who was working in a
Central PSU with offices only in Kerala (v) there were many vacancies
of ASI/Clerk in Ernakulam and she could be accommodated in one of
them, more so when other senior ASI's were available to be
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 7 ::
transferred out of Cochin and (vi) the transfer order would visit her
and her family with untold hardship and affect her family life as also
the education of her children.
THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS:
6. In the statement and counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents, the averments in the writ petition were traversed inter
alia by pointing out that (i) as per the extant guidelines the petitioner
was liable to be posted at any place within her 'home sector' and this
included any place within the southern sector comprising the States of
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Telengana, Tamil Nadu,
Puducherry and Lakshadweep (ii) The petitioner could not always rely
on the provision in the guidelines that provided for a posting in the
same station as her spouse for that would effectively result in the
petitioner being immune from a transfer while in service (iii) out of her
total service tenure of 13 years and 11 months as on 04.09.2021, she
had spent 13 years and 4 months in Cochin based units alone (iv) the
petitioner had not submitted any formal complaint regarding sexual
harassment by the 8th respondent although the respondents had put in
place a comprehensive complaint mechanism for redressing such
grievances through its Circular No.09/2014 issued under Letter No.
(267) dated 26/27 March 2014 (v) the 8 th respondent was in no way
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 8 ::
connected with the transfer order issued to the petitioner (vi) the
petitioner had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in which
orders of punishment had been passed by the 8 th respondent which
the petitioner had accepted by not pursuing the matter further
through any proceedings initiated before the appellate authority and
(vi) no fundamental or other right of the petitioner had been infringed
by the transfer order as it was one that was passed in the exigencies of
service and in public interest.
WHAT THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HELD:
7. The learned single Judge who considered the matter found
that the petitioner did not establish the allegation of mala fides in
relation to the transfer order. As regards the allegation that it was the
sexual harassment complaint against the 8 th respondent that triggered
the transfer order against her, the learned Judge found that the
petitioner had not filed any formal complaint in the matter nor
mentioned anything about such harassment in the representation
preferred against her transfer. Under the said circumstances it was
found that the allegation of sexual harassment, having been raised for
the first time only in the writ petition, did not merit consideration. As
for the other grounds urged by the petitioner in her writ petition, the
learned Judge found that the provisions in the guidelines would not
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 9 ::
come to the aid of the petitioner in resisting the transfer order, which
was found to have been issued in the exigencies of the service. The
writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS:
8. After the judgment in the writ petition was pronounced, a
submission was made on behalf of the writ petitioner that inasmuch as
she had not reported for duty at the transferred station despite expiry
of the joining time, the period of absence be treated as eligible leave.
The learned single Judge took note of the said submission and directed
the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner favourably
and further granted the petitioner 5 days time to comply with the
transfer order. However, the appellant/writ petitioner did not comply
with the transfer order within the time granted by the learned single
Judge but chose to prefer this writ appeal immediately thereafter.
9. The writ appeal was admitted by this Court on 30.11.2021
and, despite taking note of the submission made on behalf of the
respondents that pursuant to the transfer order impugned in the writ
petition, the appellant had been relieved from service and a substitute
had joined in her place, ordered that the operation and enforcement of
the transfer order be kept in abeyance as against the appellant. The
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 10 ::
respondents were also directed to explore the possibility of
provisionally retaining the appellant in Cochin. Thereafter, by an order
dated 14.02.2022, this Court directed the respondents to post the
appellant in a vacancy at the CISF unit attached to the Cochin
International Airport at Nedumbassery, subject to the outcome of the
writ appeal. Accordingly, the appellant was posted at the CISF unit at
Nedumbassery by an order dated 21.02.2022 and she is continuing
there.
10. In the appeal, the thrust of the averments is towards
establishing a case of victimization against the appellant. Emphasis is
laid on the allegations regarding sexual harassment that was urged in
the writ petition and the submission is essentially that the learned
single Judge did not consider the gravity of the said allegations, and
the effect they had of influencing the transfer order that was
impugned in the writ petition.
THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL:
11. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. Joseph Kodianthara, duly
assisted by Adv.Sri.R.Kishore, appearing on behalf of the appellant,
refers us to the correspondence between the appellant and the 8 th
respondent, as also the punishment orders passed by the 8 th
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 11 ::
respondent against the appellant to contend that there was
harassment meted out to the appellant by the 8 th respondent. He also
contends that insofar as the specific allegations of sexual harassment
in the writ petition have not be rebutted in any counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the 8th respondent, the said allegations have to be seen as
accepted by the 8th respondent. He also refers us to the documents
that show the results of a counseling session undergone by the
appellant in the presence of the 3 rd respondent to suggest that the
latter had even threatened the appellant with a transfer if she did not
mend her ways. Emphasizing that the impugned transfer was one
ordered mid-term, the learned senior counsel argues that while it is
well settled that this court will not ordinarily interfere with orders of
transfer that are necessitated in the exigencies of a service, a transfer
that was untimely and ordered mid-term had to be scrutinized
carefully to see whether it was punitive in nature. He argues that in
the instant case, it was so, since the chain of causation from the
raising of the allegation of sexual harassment to the transfer order
stood clearly established.
12. Per Contra, it is the submission of Sri. S. Manu, the learned
Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents,
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 12 ::
that there was no scope for interfering with the judgment of the
learned single judge. He takes us through the documents showing the
basis for the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant by
the 8th respondent to highlight the fact that the appellant, who was
merely a Clerk in the Accounts department of the CISF, had taken it
upon herself to adjudicate upon the validity of the claims put in by the
8th respondent for sanction of various monetary benefits. Towards that
end, she had even disobeyed clear instructions by the higher
authorities that had recommended the sanctioning of the claims
preferred by the 8th respondent. In the disciplinary proceedings that
followed, she refused to prefer replies to the charge memo's issued to
her, despite specific instructions to that effect from her superior
officers. She had also not impugned the penalty orders before the
appellate authority. The said facts, according to the learned ASG,
clearly pointed to undisciplined conduct on the part of the appellant
who was a member of a disciplined force. As regards the allegations of
sexual harassment raised against the 8 th respondent, it is pointed out
that the stray mention of an incident of sexual harassment, during a
telephone conversation with a superior officer, that was recorded by
the appellant without informing the former or obtaining his consent,
cannot be relied upon to substantiate her contention, more so when
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 13 ::
there were no steps taken by the appellant to pursue the matter
thereafter. It is argued that the appellant not having pursued the
matter of alleged sexual harassment, either through the lodging of a
formal complaint with the authorities concerned, or even mentioning
the same in her representation against the transfer order almost five
months later, it was not open to her to attribute malafides in the
passing of the transfer order. This is more so when the 8 th respondent,
against whom the allegation of sexual harassment is raised, had no
role to play in the transfer of the appellant. Lastly, the learned ASG
relies on the decisions in Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of
India and Others - [(2005) 7 SCC 227], Bank of India v. Jagjit
Singh Mehta - [(1992) 1 SCC 306], Union of India and Others v.
Sri Janardhan Debanath and Another - [(2004) 4 SCC 245],
Basheer J. v. State of Kerala & Others - [2010 (3) KHC 701] and
S.K.Nausad Rahman and Others v. Union of India and Others -
[AIR 2022 SC 1494] to contend that inasmuch as the transfer order
was passed in the exigencies of service and for administrative
convenience, there was no warrant to interfere with the same in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the
pleadings on record and taken note of the judgments relied upon by
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 14 ::
the learned counsel on either side. Before we proceed to analyse the
facts in the instant case, we deem it apposite to notice the law on the
subject.
WHAT THE LAW SAYS:
14. It is now a fairly well settled principle of service law that
the power to transfer an employee in a transferable service, is within
the prerogative of the employer for it is he who knows best where an
employee should be deployed for an effective discharge of his/her
duties for the establishment1. This is more so in a uniformed service
where the exigencies of service include matters relating to the
maintenance of discipline within its ranks 2. It is by recognizing this
inherent freedom in an employer that courts have generally adopted a
hands-off approach in matters of transfer of an employee while in
service, and interfered with orders of transfer only in the rare
instances where the transfer is seen as vitiated by statutory violations,
mala fides, either factual or legal, or where the transfer is seen as
ordered by way of punishment without first holding any disciplinary
proceedings to establish the guilt of the employee.
1 Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar - 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659; Union of India v. S.L.Abbas - 1993 (4) SCC 357;
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan - 2001 (8) SCC 574
2 Major General J.K.Bansal v. Union of India & Ors - 2005 (7) SCC 227; Major Amod Kumar v. Union of India -
2018 (18) SCC 478
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 15 ::
15. In a disciplined force such as the CISF, there may arise
cases where the continuance of the employee in a particular station is
detrimental to the maintenance of discipline at that station, and in
such cases it may seem prudent to the employer to transfer the
employee to a different station so that the twin objectives of
maintaining discipline at one station, whilst simultaneously availing
the service of the employee at another station, are achieved without
casting any aspersion on the character or conduct of the employee.
The intention behind the transfer, in such cases, is not to punish an
employee but to relocate him/her in order to maintain discipline within
the force. Such transfers, in our view, do not call for interference from
courts because they are merely measures taken by an employer in the
exigencies of the service and for efficient administration thereof.
There is no prejudice caused to an employee in such cases because
there is no stigma cast on him/her through the order of transfer, which
would affect his/her future prospects in the particular service.
16. It is also the law that for the purposes of effecting a
transfer, there need not be any enquiry conducted to first ascertain
whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an
employee, for to hold otherwise would frustrate the very purpose of
transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 16 ::
administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity. The question
whether an employee could be transferred to a different division is a
matter for the employer to consider depending upon the
administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems
faced by the administration.3
OUR FINDINGS:
17. On an analysis of the facts in the instant case, we find the
appellant to be a person who relentlessly portrays herself as a victim
of circumstances with a view to avoid a posting outside of Cochin. In
almost every representation preferred by her against orders of
transfer issued to her, from the time of her appointment in the force on
compassionate grounds, she has never hesitated to highlight the fact
that her appointment was on compassionate basis consequent to the
death of her father while in service, and further, that as per the
guidelines in force she has to be posted at a place where her husband
is posted. The fact that her husband is working in FACT Ltd, a Central
Public Sector Undertaking with no office outside of Kerala, has
allowed her to conveniently rely on the guidelines to effectively stall
all such transfer orders issued to her in the past, that envisaged a
posting outside Kerala. When in 2017, her attempts at stalling a
3 Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Janardhan Debanath & Anr - 2004 (4) SCC 245; Basheer J v. State of Kerala & Ors. -
2010 (3) KHC 701
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 17 ::
transfer to Kudigi failed, she joined duty at the said place only to be
transferred back to Cochin three months later, pursuant to a request
preferred by her for such re-transfer. Even during the three months
that she was posted at Kudigi, she effectively worked there only for
three days as the rest of the period was covered by the leave and
joining time availed by her.
18. It is no doubt true that the accommodation granted to her
by the respondents herein contributed to a large extent to the benefit
of the extended tenure at Cochin that the appellant obtained.
However, rather than expressing gratitude to her employer for the
indulgence shown in the past, she appears to have inculcated a certain
arrogance while discharging her duties at the workplace. A perusal of
the documents produced by her along with the writ petition, to
substantiate her contention that the transfer order was vitiated by
mala fides, clearly reveals the manner in which, as a mere clerk in the
Accounts department of the respondent force, she arrogated to herself
the role of a superior officer deciding upon the validity of a claim for
monetary benefits (LTC) put in by the 8 th respondent, who was an
Assistant Commandant and therefore her superior officer. Her duty as
a Clerk was merely to forward the claim of the 8 th respondent,
together with her remarks if any, to the competent authority for
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 18 ::
processing. Instead, what she did was to stall the processing of the
said claim by noting various objections, even after the superior officers
of that department had noted in the file that the claims could be
processed without any need for obtaining further clarifications (See:
Ext.P8 Note Sheet). Not surprisingly, her conduct invited disciplinary
proceedings against her, at the instance of the 8 th respondent, and
eventually led to punishment orders being passed against her, none of
which were challenged by her in appellate proceedings. Even in the
disciplinary proceedings she remained non-co-operative by refusing to
file replies to the charge memo before the 8th respondent, choosing
rather to file the reply before another superior officer who was not the
disciplinary authority. Although the said officer informed her that the
reply was to be given to the 8th respondent, she refused to do so and
the penalty orders were passed ex parte.
19. We find from a perusal of the pleadings in the instant case
that the above incidents of misconduct by the appellant did play a
significant role in the decision of the respondents to transfer the
appellant to Narsapur, and we find nothing wrong in it. We do not
think that merely because the respondents took note of the misconduct
of the appellant at the workplace, the transfer order issued to her can
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 19 ::
be seen as punitive in nature and therefore vitiated. On the contrary,
we are inclined to view the transfer as a prudent measure taken by the
respondents to maintain discipline at the workplace. This is especially
so when we find that the respondents herein are charged with
administering a disciplined force.
20. The other grounds of challenge raised by the appellant
against the transfer order are also legally unsustainable. Her
allegation of sexual harassment as against the 8 th respondent is not
one that was ever established. Her representations before the various
superior authorities, against the 8 th respondent, were essentially
complaints against him for initiating disciplinary proceedings against
her on charges that she felt were wholly unjustifiable. However, her
action of accepting the penalties imposed on her in those proceedings,
without challenging them before the appellate authority, effectively
rendered those complaints baseless. As regards her allegation of
sexual harassment, it is significant that there was only a stray mention
of an incident of sexual harassment, that too during a telephone
conversation with a superior officer that was recorded by the appellant
without informing the former or obtaining his consent. That apart, the
appellant did not pursue the matter thereafter, either through the
lodging of a formal complaint with the authorities concerned, or even
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 20 ::
mentioning the same in her representation against the transfer order
almost five months later. It was by noticing these facts that the learned
single judge found that the charge of sexual harassment did not
deserve consideration. We see no reason to take a different view.
21. As for the contention that the applicable guidelines were
violated while transferring the appellant to Narsapur, we see no merit
in the same. There is nothing in the guidelines that mandates a
retention of the appellant in Cochin for the entire tenure of her service
with the respondents. It is significant that the guidelines speak of
retention only in the home sector, which for the appellant is the
southern sector comprising of the States of Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Kerala, Telengana, Tamil Nadu, and the Union Territories
of Puducherry and Lakshadweep. Her reliance on the guideline that
envisages a posting in the same station as her spouse is also not
justified. As observed by the Supreme Court in a case relating to the
transfer of a bank employee4:
"5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable
the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the
same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such
a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of
posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their
preference may be taken into account while making the decision in
4 Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta - 1992 KHC 753
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 21 ::
accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of All India
Services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different
stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to
different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of
the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service,
the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a
hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the
posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the
administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple
have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and
family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting
such a promotion or any appointment in an All India Service with the
incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the
couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be
relieved of the ordinary incidents of All India, Service and avoid transfer to
a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted
at different places. In addition, in the present case, the respondent
voluntarily gave an undertaking that he was prepared to be posted at any
place in India and on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to
the Officers' grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of that necessary
incident of All India Service on the ground that his wife has to remain at
Chandigarh. No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted
at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to
claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not
consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental
authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of
administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station
if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the
claim of other employees."
22. The above observations apply with added rigour when the
employment is in a disciplined force and the statutory provisions
governing the force mandate that an employee can be posted in any
place within or outside India (See: Section 15 of the Central Industrial
Security Force Act, 1968). We are also not persuaded to accept the
contention of the learned senior counsel that inasmuch as the transfer
is ordered mid-term it should be viewed with suspicion. For the
W.A.NO.1596 OF 2021 :: 22 ::
reasons already stated, the transfer of the appellant in the
circumstances noticed above is justified and can only be seen as
necessitated in the interests of maintaining discipline in the force.
23. The upshot of the above discussion is that we see no reason
to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge impugned in
this appeal. We therefore vacate the interim orders passed in this
appeal and dismiss the appeal. The respondents are free to relieve the
appellant from her present posting at Nedumbassery and direct her to
report for duty at Narsapur forthwith, after allowing her the normal
joining time granted to transferred officers in the force.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
prp/
