Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Firoz Khan vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jd:9451) on 23 February, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:9451]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6089/2020
Firoz Khan S/o Shri Jasawa Khan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 78-
Pahadganj Colony II Behind Powerhouse, Lalsagar Road, Jodhpur
(Presently Posted As Head Constable-Stc Bsf Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home
Affairs, New Delhi, Rajasthan.
2. The Director General, Boarder Security Force, Block No.
10, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (110003).
3. The Inspector General, Border Security Force, Stc
Mandore Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Assistant Commandant, Head Quarters, Special Dg
(Western Command) Bsf, Chandigarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Salman Agha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, DySG assisted
by Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
23/02/2024
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 02.07.2020 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner
was de-attached from Camel Mounted Band of STC BSF, Jodhpur.
2. Facts pertinent in the present case, are that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Constable (GD) on 23.03.1990
whereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable.
3. The petitioner was firstly attached to Camel Mounted Band of
STC BSF, Jodhpur, however, by way of the subsequent order dated
05.09.2011, he was de-attached/relieved to join his unit.
[2024:RJ-JD:9451] (2 of 4) [CW-6089/2020]
4. Later on, the petitioner was again attached with Band PI of
Camel Wing STC JDR by way of order dated 07.10.2015.
5. Petitioner continued under the attachment unless the
impugned order dated 02.07.2020 came to be passed, whereby
the petitioner was de-attached from the band and was relieved to
join back his platoon.
6. Mr. Agha, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as
there is no power/provision of de-attachment, the impugned order
dated 02.07.2020 is void and lacks jurisdiction.
7. Learned counsel further argued that de-attachment seems to
be done on the ground of misbehavior but on such account the
respondent authorities could initiate disciplinary action but could
not pass order of de-attachment.
8. While emphasising that transfer cannot be made by way of
or in lieu of punishment, learned counsel argued that respondent-
authorities, vide impugned order dated 02.07.2020, used the de-
attachment/transfer as a mode of punishment. Learned counsel
drew Court's attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs
Union of India and Ors. reported in 2009 2SCC 592 in support
of his argument.
9. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing
on behalf of respondent-Union of India submitted that the office
order dated 28.11.2019 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs
governs the posting/transfer/attachment of Camel
Handlers/Trainers in Camel Wing at STC BSF, Jodhpur, which order
clearly postulates in Para 5, that camel handlers and trainers of
STC BST, Jodhpur can be de-attached irrespective of their tenure
[2024:RJ-JD:9451] (3 of 4) [CW-6089/2020]
on the ground of Administrative/Disciplinary proceedings. He
produced a photocopy of the above order for perusal of the Court,
the same is taken on record. He also submitted that petitioner's
behaviour with the higher officials and his colleagues was not in
order, and also he was found carrying and taking on mobile phone
while on duty, which necessitated his de-attachment from the
Camel Mounted Wing. He argued that the impugned order dated
17.08.2011 came to be passed in better administration of
disciplined force.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
11. So far as the petitioner's first contention is concerned, that
there is no power/provision of de-attachment order, this Court
does not find any force therein. It is settled position of law, that if
an authority has power to give, it has inherent power to take it
back; as is provided under Section 21 of General Clauses
Act,1977.
12. That apart, the Government order dated 28.11.2019 which
deals with de-attachment/transfer of Camel handlers, clearly
shows that petitioner and other persons working as camel handler
and trainers, can be de-attached/transfered in case of
administrative/ disciplinary actions.
13. Para 5 of the order dated 28.11.2019, issued by Ministry of
Home Affairs, reads thus:-
"Camel handlers and trainers of STC
BSF Jodhpur, irrespective of their tenure
can however, be de-attached on
administrative/disciplinary grounds by HQ
Spl DG (Western Command) on the basis of
recommendation of IG STC BSF, Jodhpur."
[2024:RJ-JD:9451] (4 of 4) [CW-6089/2020]
14. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is
concerned, same relates to transfer and the present order is not
that of transfer but the same relates to de-attachment. May be the
respondents in their reply have used the expression transfer/de-
attachment, but having regard to the expression de-attachment
and nature of duties discharged by the petitioner, the same cannot
be equated with transfer.
15. Furthermore, the petitioner's de-attachment which was made
by order dated 07.10.2015 was for the purpose of five years and
said period is now over.
16. Looking from any angle, this Court does not find any merit in
the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
214-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
