Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Faujdar vs Railway Police Force on 11 May, 2022
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 7989 of 2022
Between:-
BALRAM FAUJDAR S/O SHRI MANSINGH
FAUJDAR , AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SUB INSPECTOR, HQ RATLAM,
WESTERN RAILWAY VILLAGE TIGHARIYA,
RAMNAGAR (RAJASTHAN)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI H.K. GOLHANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAILWAY POLICE FORCE THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR GENERAL NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL CUM PRINCIPAL CHIEF
SECURITY COMMISSIONER GLO BUILDING,
CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
3. SR. DIVISIONL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
R.P.F. WESTERN RAILWAY RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. I N S P E C T O R . R.P.F. WESTERN RAILWAY,
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU JOSHI - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
In the instant petition, a challenge has been made to the transfer order
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.05.12
dated 02.03.2022 whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Ratlam
12:58:14 IST
Division, Western Zone to Guwahati Assam, Northeast Frontier Railways on
administrative ground. A further challenge has been made to the order dated
01.04.2022, by which the representation of the petitioner has been disposed off
by not exceeding the request of the petitioner for cancellation or modification of
the transfer order.
This is second visit of the petitioner before this Court. In earlier round,
he challenged the transfer order in WP No.6002/2022, which was disposed off
with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed and comprehensive
representation to the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 was directed to
decide the same in accordance with the law within the period of one month. In
compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondent no.2 have passed the order
dated 01.04.2022 not accepting the request to the petitioner and rejected the
representation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been
subjected to frequent transfers, which is contrary to the judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of B.Varadha Rao Vs State of Karnataka And
Ors reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131 and also the transfer order is prerogative in
nature, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Ors reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592.
It is further submitted that the transfer order has been passed by the
incompetent authority. The petitioner has been subjected to the departmental
victimization. The respondents have passed the detailed order dated 01.04.2022
considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and rejected the representation
of the petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.05.12
12:58:14 IST
petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds. The petitioner was
appointed as Sub-inspector in Railway Protection Force in the year 2010 and
after having undergone initial training he was allotted western railways. During
the course of service he was given permission to pursue higher studies in the
year 2015 on his request with a condition that he will pursue his studies without
affecting official duties. Further, he was sanctioned leave many times on his
request. However, he remained unauthorizely absent beyond the sanction leave
for a total period of 742 days. For the said act of indiscipline, he has been dealt
under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules thrice. He was given sufficient
opportunity to change his behaviour but no improvement was noted by the
respondents. It is further stated in the order that again due to his misbehaviour
with the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Mumbai Central in the
orderly room, he was issued a major penalty charge sheet, in which the charge
of unauthorized absence from duty for a period of 236 days was also added.
However, since the charge sheet was having a technical error, it was withdrawn
on his representation. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector on 30.082019
and posted at Rajkot Division of Western Railway. Subsequently, the charge
sheet which was withdrawn on technical ground, was rectified and was re-
issued to him while his posting in Rajkot. After the completion of departmental
inquiry in accordance with the law and principals of natural justice he was
awarded with a punishment of reversion to the rank of Sub-inspector on
04.01.2022. On the receipt of notices for implementing punishment, he
submitted the appeal and immediately thereafter absented from the duty with
effect from 06.01.2022.
It is further submitted that he displayed discreditable conduct by
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
orchestrating his absence wherein his wife filed a police complaint in order to
Date: 2022.05.12
12:58:14 IST
put pressure on the administration. Further his wife and subsequently, the
petitioner himself appeared before the media and leveled allegations against the
superior officers and threatened to file FIR against them, which is an act in
violative of Rule 279 of RPF Rules, 1987.
Apart from this, the petitioner also misbehaved with the Divisional
Operating Manager, a Lady Officer and a fact finding inquiry proved the
allegations against him. This situation created a crisis which was adversely
affecting the relationship between the sister departments of Railway. Hence, in
administrative interest, he was transferred to Raltam Division in order to defuse
the prevailing tense situation in Rajkot. However, considering the gross
indiscipline, insubordination and misconduct of the petitioner necessitated an
exemplary administrative action to help in establish the importance of discipline
among the member of the force the petitioner has been transferred from
Western Railway to Northeast Frontier Railway by the undersigned on
administrative grounds.
The judgments placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not
rendered any assistance in the facts of the present case as the petitioner has
been transferred on administrative exigency.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any case for warranting any
interference against the transfer order and also against the order rejecting the
representation.
The petition is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.05.12
12:58:14 IST
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2022.05.12
12:58:14 IST
