A CRPF Assistant Sub-Inspector challenged his transfer from Silchar to 140 Bn., citing his wife's suspected DVT and the need to care for his visually impaired 87-year-old father. The court declined to interfere, noting no diagnosed medical emergency and that aged-parent care was outside the transfer policy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010093982024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2482/2024
ASI/MIN 025130404 SWARAJ SINHA S/O- NANI SINHA, R/O- VILL- KACHUBARI, P.O.- TINOKHAL, P.S.- PATHERKANDI, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM- 788724.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110003.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX
NEW DELHI-110001.
3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (ESTABLISHMENT) OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX
NEW DELHI-110001.
4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH EASTERN SECTOR
Page No.# 2/6
C.R.P.F. SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN- 793001. 5:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (MEDICAL) COMPOSITE HOSPITAL C.R.P.F. SILCHAR PIN- 788031. 6:THE COMMANDANT 140 BATTALION AT LOCATION THROUGH RESPONDENT NO. 3
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 18.07.2024
Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. R. Devi, learned CGC along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Commandant (Legal).
Page No.# 3/6
has been transferred and posted at 140 Bn. CRPF.
Page No.# 4/6
Page No.# 5/6
“6. We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first place, a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of f posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed. Apart there from, if the appellant really had some genuine difficulty in reporting for work at Tezpur, he could have reported for duty at Amritsar where he was so posted. We too decline to believe the story of his remaining sick. Assuming there was some sickness, we are not satisfied that it prevented him from joining duty either at Tezpur or at Amritsar. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital proves this point. In the circumstances, we too are of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of
Page No.# 6/6
the misconduct of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty.”
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a CRPF personnel's transfer order should be interfered with on grounds of family hardship including care of an aged parent not covered by the transfer policy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶13
(2006) 9 SCC 583 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ASI/MIN 025130404 Swaraj Sinha
The Union of India
The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force
The Deputy Inspector General (Establishment), Directorate General, CRPF
The Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector, C.R.P.F., Shillong
The Dy. Inspector General of Police (Medical), Composite Hospital, C.R.P.F., Silchar
Kalyan Rai Surana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
