Dismissed

M.Yerranna v. C.R.P.F.Rep.by Inspector General of Police

Telangana HC17 Nov 2011WP/14788/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by CRPF constable challenging premature transfer from Hyderabad alleging hijinks in family accommodation and duty allegations and praying to stay the transfer preserving of family tenure status The court discounted the petition distinguishing armed forces transfer principles emphasising administrative discretion and lack of strong discriminatory evidence to justify intervention

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed against the transfer

M.Yerranna Vs C.R.P.F.Rep.by Inspector General of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

W.P.NO.14788 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

Heard both the counsel.

¶5

2. The petitioner was appointed as constable in the respondent – Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1995. After working at Nagaland, Jammu and Kashmir and Tamilnadu, for a period of three years at each place, he is presently transferred by movement order dated 16.2.2010, to Hyderabad and was allotted family quarters in May, 2010. His case is that his tenure at Hyderabad should be for a period of three years i.e., up to 1.3.2013. His further case is that he is married and his two children are studying at Hyderabad and that his wife is working as nurse on a contract basis in Kurnool District in the medical and Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. His grievance is that by proceedings No.T.IX.2/2011-GCH-EC.I dated 6.5.2001 he was transferred to 78^th Battalion located at Nagaland with further orders to be relived on 25.5.2011 and as a consequence thereof, another proceedings dated 7.5.2011, was issued asking him to vacate the quarters on or before 25.5.2011. His contention is that he shall not be transferred before completion of three years tenure at Hyderabad and that because of the present transfer, he is put to severe hardship and it affects the education of his children and also casts a stigma on his service career. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶6

3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CR P F , Hyderabad - 2^nd respondent, filed detailed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents. In the counter affidavit it is stated inter alia that the petitioner has indulged in indiscipline acts by overstaying leave willfully without sanction of the competent authority on number of occasions and however, the

¶7

said period was regularized and in the present station, though he was allotted family accommodation, he was staying alone in the said quarter and complaints were also received stating that he is indulging in illegal activities with undesirable personnel and this amounts to violation of the allotment rules and further, he also indulged in chit fund business in the premises of GC Hyderabad and threatened a lady by name Smt. Rama Devi, resident of type – II family quarters of GC Hyderabad with dire consequences for non-payment of amount and, therefore, considering his illegal activities as well as security/peace of the camp, the competent authority returned the petitioner to his parent unit from where he was posted to GC Hyderabad. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed.

¶8

4. Writ petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit denying the averments made in the counter affidavit.

¶9

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit further contended that no enquiry was conducted on the allegations made against the petitioner and thus transferring him prematurely as measure of punishment on the said grounds amounts to mala fide exercise of power and non-application of mind and hence the same is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court

¶10

reported in SOMESH TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA^[1] .

¶11

6. The Assistant Solicitor General of India, supporting the impugned order of transfer, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶12

7. The petitioner is working in armed forces. As per Clause 3 (e) of Standing Order No.02/2011 dated 12.5.2011 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF, the competent transferring authority will have the right to transfer a person at any time, irrespective

¶13

of tenure on administrative grounds or in public interest. The counter affidavit discloses that because of the violation of the accommodation rules and the complaints received with regard to illegal activities of the petitioner, he was transferred in the interest of the camp. The said reasons are not forthcoming in the impugned order of transfer. Hence, it has to be taken that for administrative reasons, his transfer was effected.

¶14

8. The facts of the present case are similarly to the decision in G.N.NARENDRA BABU v. THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE^[2] . The facts therein, disclose that a personnel of Central Industrial Security Force was transferred prematurely on the allegations of undesirable activities. He challenged the same on the ground that his transfer would affect the education of his children and also would cast a stigma on his service career. The Division Bench of this court while not accepting the contentions of the appellant, held that “we are convinced that impugned order of transfer effecting the appellant is certainly not by way of punishment but for administrative reasons and we find nothing wrong in it. Dismissed. ”

¶15

9. The judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the counsel for the petitioner (1 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The employee in the said case is a civilian employee and does not belong to armed forces. Hence, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the present facts and circumstances in all fours.

¶16

10. The Apex Court in MAJOR GENERAL J.K. BANSAL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS^[3] , while holding that unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders, as though they were

¶17

the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management. However, the apex court distinguished the decisions when they are considering the case of armed forces from that of civilian employees. At paragraph no.12, it held as under:

¶18

“It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptional strong case is made out, no interference should be made.”

¶19

11. From the above judgment it is clear that while dealing with the cases of armed forces, the Court shall be slow in interfering with the order of transfer, unless an exceptionally strong case is made out.

¶20

12. In the writ affidavit, the petitioner stated that he was allotted family quarters in May, 2010 and that he is married and got two children studying 2^nd and 3^rd classes at Hyderabad and that presently his wife is working as a nurse on a contract basis in Kurnbool District in the Medical and Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has not stated in unequivocal terms that he is staying with his family in the family quarter allotted to him at Hyderabad and as per his own case, his wife is working at Kurnool. The allegation of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that he is staying alone in the family accommodation and this amounts to violation of the accommodation rules. Theses averments probablize the case of the respondents in the counter affidavit with regard to violation of the accommodation rules.

¶21

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any exceptionally strong case for interference of this court. In view of the above decisions cited, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

14. For the foregoing reasons, I do find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶23

AVS -----------------------------------17—11—2011

¶24

[1] (2009)2 SCC 592

¶25

[2] W.A.NO.706 OF 2011 dated 20.09.2011

¶26

[3] Appeal (Civil) 5189 of 2005 dated 23.8.2005

M.Yerranna v. C.R.P.F.Rep.by Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yerranna v. C.R.P.F.Rep.by Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Ravinder Raju Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

N.Pandu Vs The Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation

M.Veera Sangappa Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

N.V. Babu, Vs The Apsrtc

N. Bhaskar Rao Vs The a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director

T. Lakshmana Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation