Mr Pardeep Singh Vs Union of India

THE OFFICE OF THE SENIOR COMMANDANT DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR SENIOR COMMANDANT CISF UNIT, URSC BENGALURU CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT ISAC, BENGALURU - 560017

¶15

MR. DHANANJAYA NAIK C SENIOR COMMANDANT WZ-II, HQ AHMEDABAD PLOT NO 1, ROAD NO 6, ODHAV INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ODHAV WZ-II, HQ AHMEDABAD GUJRAT - 382415.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶18

(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;

¶19

NOTICE SERVED ON ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS MOVEMENT ORDER DATED 10.03.2025 BEARING NO.E-38014/CISF/URSC(B)/ADM-I/POSTING/M.O/20251668 ISSUED BY DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR SENIOR COMMANDANT CISF UNIT, URSC, BENGALURU DIG DOS ZONE-1 OFFICE FROM URSC(B) TO REPORT AT LPSC (VALIAMALA) AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.E38014/CISF/URSC(B)/ADM-I/Posting/M.O/2025-1668 dated 10.03.2025 issued by the Deputy Commandant on behalf of a Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, URSC, Bengaluru DIG DOS Zone - I office from URSC(B) to LPSC, Valiamala. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to comply with the Annual Transfers, 2025 and service order No.20/2025 dated 12.02.2025 in respect of married working couple issued by the

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶26

Inspector General, New Delhi and to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer him to TRG Headquarters, Delhi Unit. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to make good the loss suffered by him being the two days pay cut.

¶27

(i) The petitioner contends that he had joined the Central Industrial Security Force Unit (for short 'CISF') and after training, he was transferred to KARC, Mumbai, where he served between October, 2016 to May, 2022. He was thereafter posted at Bengaluru, where he worked from May, 2022 to 10.03.2025. He contends that he was affected by an order of annual transfer dated 02.01.2025 where he was given a nonchoice posting as per the order bearing No.E38015/CISF/URSC(B) / ADM-I /Posting/2025-48. He contends that as per the order dated 02.01.2025 bearing No.E38015/CISF/URSC(B) / ADM-I /Posting/2025-48, there were 145 eligible personnel for choice posting and the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2 of the list. He contends that after the office order dated 02.01.2025 was communicated to him, he received a movement order dated 21.01.2025 requiring him to report at LPSC, Valiamala. He challenged the said transfer before this Court in W.P.No.2802/2025. During the pendency of the writ

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶30

petition, an affidavit was filed by the Senior Commandant, CISF, wherein it was stated as follows:

¶31

"5. That it was further submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the petitioner possesses functional expertise in Crisis Response Team and Space Technology, Drone Application Course, and Counter-Insurgency and Jungle Warfare Operations Course, which makes his presence crucial at LPSC, Valimala in the prevailing security scenario.

¶32

6. That it is categorically stated that the transfer of the petitioner from Bengaluru to Valiamala shall, in no manner, affect his seniority for posting or promotion at any point in time.

¶33

7. That in compliance with the direction of this Hon'ble Court, the present affidavit is filed to reaffirm that the petitioner's transfer was made in the interest of administrative exigencies and that his seniority will remain unaffected."

¶34

(ii) He contends that this Court noting the assertions made in the affidavit rejected the writ petition and granted one week time to the petitioner to report at LPSC, Valimala. He contends that in the meantime, he received Annual Transfer, 2025 on 12.02.2025. Later on 13.02.2025 he received a memo

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶36

where he was accused of gross indiscipline and carelessness in duty and violation of lawful orders.

¶37

(iii) He contends that in order to comply with the order passed in the writ petition referred supra, he requested the respondents to relieve him at URSC, Bengaluru so that he could report at LPSC, Valiamala. He made a written request in this regard to the Senior Commandant CISF, URSC, Bengaluru on 15.02.2025. He also sought clarification regarding his reporting, since there were two parallel orders, one which required him to report at LPSC, Valiamala and another which required him to report at New Delhi. Since he did not receive any response, he followed it up by an email dated 16.02.2025. The respondents without considering his request for clarification, proceeded to conduct an enquiry and submitted a final report. After the final report the petitioner was indicted of the charges. Later the respondent No.3 issued another movement order bearing No. bearing No.E38014/CISF/URSC(B)/ADM-I/ Posting/M.O/2025-1668 by

¶38

which, he was relieved from URSC, Bengaluru and was required to report at CISF unit, LPSC, Valiamala.

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶41

Being aggrieved by the movement order dated 10.03.2025 the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was at Sl.No.2 in the list of seniority for choice posting. He contends that in view of the affidavit filed by the Senior Commandant in W.P.No.2802/2025, the seniority of the petitioner has to be maintained. He contends that though this Court had granted one week time for him to report at Valiamala, the respondents had issued another order dated 12.02.2025 directing him to report at New Delhi in terms of Annual Transfers - 2025. Soon thereafter, they initiated proceedings against him alleging gross indiscipline/ carelessness in duty and violation of lawful orders, unbecoming of a member of CISF. Following this, the petitioner sought for a clarification whether he has to report at Valiamala or at New Delhi. He therefore contends that before he could report at Valiamala, the respondents have passed a final order imposing fine to pay an amount equivalent to his two days pay and thereafter posted him again to Valiamala on 10.03.2025. He contends that the petitioner reported at Valiamala on 20.03.2025 itself and therefore, he contends that the petitioner

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶45

has complied with the order of transfer but he is unnecessarily exposed to a departmental action and he is deprived of choice posting to which he was entitled as per his seniority. He therefore, contends that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be set at naught. He also sought for a direction to restore earlier annual transfer order dated 12.02.2025 by which, he was transferred to New Delhi.

¶46

The writ petition is opposed by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents who contends that the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2 in the Annual Transfer - 2025 and therefore was entitled to choice posting. However due to the domain expertise that the petitioner possessed, he was posted at Valiamala on 21.01.2025. He contends that the petitioner did not report at Valiamala but chose to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.2802/2025. He therefore submits that the respondents appeared before this Court and filed an affidavit stating therein that the seniority of the petitioner will not be affected and the petitioner's transfer was due to administrative exigencies and that his seniority will remain unaffected. He contends that this Court noticing the statements made in the affidavit, rejected the writ petition and

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶48

granted one week time to report at Valiamala. He contends that even after one week had lapsed, the petitioner did not report to duty at Valiamala. In the meanwhile, Annual Transfer - 2025 in respect of married working couples was considered by the Directorate in terms of which, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi. He contends that disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner for not receiving the earlier order of transfer dated 21.01.2025 when it was sought to be served on him on 22.01.2025. He contends that the respondents after considering the representation of the petitioner in response to the articles of charge, passed a final order dated 10.03.2025 imposing fine to pay an amount equivalent to his two days pay and thereafter issued a movement order dated 10.03.2025 directing him to report at Valiamala. He contends that the petitioner has now reported at Valiamala and that if the petitioner is desirous of getting a retransfer to New Delhi, he may make a representation before the concerned and that the representation would be considered in accordance with law.

¶49

9 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶51

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents.

¶52

The petitioner was transferred from Bengaluru to Valiamala in terms of an order dated 21.01.2025. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.No.2802/2025 on the ground that his transfer to Valiamala would affect his seniority for choice posting or promotion. It was also contended that the transfer to LPSC, Valimala was in the nature of punishment and that the respondents had not followed the transfer guidelines. The Senior Commandant of CISF was thereafter directed to file an affidavit as to whether the seniority of the petitioner would be affected by his transfer to Valiamala. An affidavit was filed stating therein that the transfer of the petitioner to Valiamala would not affect his seniority for choice posting or promotion. Therefore, this Court rejected the writ petition by considering the affidavit filed by the Senior Commandant, CISF and granted one week time to the petitioner to report to duty at transferred place.

¶53

10 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶55

It appears that after disposal of the writ petition, directorate had issued Annual Transfers, 2025 on 12.02.2025 in respect of the married working couples, in terms of which, the petitioner was transferred to New Delhi from URSC, Bengaluru. Thereafter on 13.02.2025, the respondents seems to have initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner for not receiving the movement order dated 21.01.2025. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.02.2025 seeking clarification whether he should report at NewDelhi or Valiamala. However, the respondents without advising the petitioner, proceeded to consider the representation of the petitioner and passed the final order imposing fine to pay an amount equivalent to his two days pay and thereafter issued another movement order dated 10.03.2025 requiring the petitioner to report at Valiamala. It is therefore evident that the transfer of the petitioner to New Delhi as per the Annual Transfer, 2025 on 12.02.2025 was not given effect to and the earlier transfer order of the petitioner dated 21.01.2025 was restored.

¶56

11 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶58

The very fact that the petitioner was at Sl.No.2 in the list of personnel entitled for choice posting, he was justified in receiving or resisting his transfer order, which itself cannot be construed as a misconduct. Moreover, the petitioner, who had challenged the order of transfer to LPSC, Valimala before this Court was though not justified in refusing to report at LPSC, Valiamala but that cannot be construed as a misconduct in view of his apprehension that his seniority of choice posting would be affected. The respondents therefore could not have taken disciplinary action against the petitioner for not receiving the order dated 21.01.2025 and the consequent punishment imposed on the petitioner was wholly unwarranted. Since the petitioner has now reported to duty at Valiamala, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms:

¶59

(i) Writ petition is disposed off.

¶60

(ii) The impugned order bearing No.E38014/CISF/URSC(B)/ADM-/Posting/M.O/20251668 dated 10.03.2025 transferring the petitioner from URSC, Bengaluru to LPSC, Valiamala is upheld. However, this shall not

¶61

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15482 WP No. 10567 of 2025

¶62

affect the seniority of the petitioner for the purpose of choice posting or promotion.

¶63

(iii) If the petitioner is entitled for transfer as per

¶64

the transfer guidelines, regarding transfer of married couples, the petitioner may submit a representation before the respondent No.2 within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent No.2 shall consider the same within a period of one month thereafter.

¶65

(iv) The final order bearing No. V-15014 / CISF / URSC(B) / DISC / UR37 / PS /2025-1657 dated 10.03.2025 punishing the petitioner to pay an amount equivalent to his two days pay is quashed. As a result, the petitioner shall be entitled to restoration of his two days pay forthwith.

¶66

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶67

HJ

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Mr Pardeep Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Pardeep Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R K Bharat Krishna Vs Canara Bank

C L Jayram Vs State Represented by Lokayukta

Sri Chethan Krishna Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Smt.K. Kavitha Vs the Deputy Secretary to the GOVERNMENT-2

Smt. K N Manjula Vs the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd.

Smt Revathi Rajashekaran Vs the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd.