Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5227/2024 on 2 February, 2026
GAHC010207052024
2026:GAU-AS:1377
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) NO. 5227 OF 2024
Vinod Kumar Meena
S/o- Babu Lal Meena
Address for communication- 1st Battalion,
Railway Protection Special Force, Lumding,
Karbi Anglong, Assam, PIN- 782447.
.......Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, represented by the
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, Raisina
Road, New Delhi, Pin- 782447.
2. The Railway Board, represented by its
Chairman, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New
Delhi, Pin- 110001.
3. The Director/SEC (ABE) Railway Board, Rail
Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi, Pin-
110001.
4. The Director General of Railway Protection
Force, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New
Delhi, Pin0 110001.
5. The Principal Chief Security Commissioner,
Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon,
Guwahati- 781001, Assam.
6. The Commanding Officer, 1st Battalion
Railway Protection Special Force, Lumding,
Karbi Anglong, Assam, Pin- 782447.
Page 1 of 13
7. The Commanding Officer, B, 11th Battalion,
Railway Protection Special Force, Gaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh, Pin- 201001.
....... Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. I. Rafique, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. B. Sharma, Central Government Counsel.
Date on which judgment
is reserved : N/A.
Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 02.02.2026.
Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part
of the judgment ? : N/A.
Whether the full judgment
has been pronounced : Yes.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sharma, learned CGC appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner who is serving as constable under the administrative control of Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon, calls into question the transfer order dated 19.09.2024 whereby he has been transferred from 1st Battalion Railway Protection Special Force, Lumding, Karbi Anglong, Assam, to Page 2 of 13 11th Battalion of Railway Protection Special Force, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
3. The challenge is primarily on the ground that the impugned transfer, though styled as an administrative transfer, is in substance a punitive transfer, issued without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned transfer order attributes to the petitioner involvement in groupism, disobedience of senior officers, and creation of indiscipline. The impugned transfer order advises counselling and warns of serious disciplinary action. These recitals make the impugned order stigmatic. He further submits that the impugned transfer order not being preceded by any show cause notice or enquiry, the same is totally illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
5. Per contra, Ms. B. Sharma, learned CGC appearing for the respondent, submits that the impugned transfer was necessitated by administrative interest to restore discipline in the unit, as several personnel, including the petitioner, were allegedly forming groups and disturbing institutional functioning.
6. I have given my due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the contending parties and also perused the materials available on record.
Page 3 of 137. The short question for consideration is whether the impugned transfer order is a bona fide administrative transfer or a punitive transfer founded on allegations of misconduct.
8. Although transfer is an incident of service, where misconduct forms the foundation, the transfer assumes a punitive character. In other words, when an order of transfer carries stigma or is based on specific allegations or imputations, it ceases to be a simple transfer and assumes the character of panel action. The courts while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the context of allegations of transfer being punitive, are empowered to lift the veil and examine the real nature of the transfer order. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari -Vs- Union of India & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592, wherein the Apex Court has held that a transfer founded on allegations of misconduct is punitive and unsustainable without opportunity of hearing. The relevant Paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: -
"16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds-one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu Page 4 of 13 of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."
9. Likewise, in N.K. Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98, the Apex Court has held that transfer for a collateral purpose, such as avoiding disciplinary proceedings, is open to judicial review. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles let me now turn to the impugned transfer order dated 19.09.2024, which reads as under: -
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) ******** No. 2024/Sec (ABE)/TR-5/2 Delhi, dated: -19.09.2024 Commanding Officer, IBN/RPSF/LMG.
Sub: Inter Battalion transfer of CT/Vinod Kumar Meena of IBN/RPSF.
Ref: -IBN' letters Nos. 1 बीपन/गोप/मिमित/एस.ओ/2024/712 & 713 मिन ां क 07.09.2024 & 09.09.2024 ******** Apropos above, CT/Vinod Kumar Meena, UIN/01SF1522251 of IBN/RPSF is hereby transferred and posted to 11BN/RPSF/GHZ on administrative ground.
Further, it is advised that he should be counselled not to spread groupism and disaffection among force personnel. If he continues with his activities, he would be taken up strictly under extant D&AR rules. He should treat this transfer as an opportunity to start afresh, break free from his past legacy and improve his conduct.
Necessary action may be taken accordingly.
Signed by Vijay Kumar Director/Sec(ABE) Railway Board."Page 5 of 13
10. Reading the impugned transfer order, it is apparent that the order records allegations of groupism, indiscipline, and disaffection among force personnel and advises counselling and also warns of disciplinary action. These are not neutral administrative grounds. They attribute blame, misconduct behavior on the part of the petitioner and cast aspersions on his conduct.
11. It further appears from the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents on 18.12.2024 that the impugned transfer order had to be issued due to the highly indiscipline behavior of the petitioner while he was posted in the 1st Battalion. Relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition read as under: -
"7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition, the deponent states that the Commanding Officer of the 4th Battalion had sent a confidential report on August 6, 2023, to the Railway Board, highlighting misconduct of the petitioner. The report highlighted that he was involved in activities that undermined discipline and fostered disaffection within the force. The petitioner was indulged in to create casteism & groupism in the Company. The petitioner allegedly made false accusations against other staff members and exerted undue pressure on the Company Commander to take action based on these false allegations. This behavior caused significant administrative difficulties, disrupting the smooth functioning of office operations, mess management, and duty allocations within the company.
Apart from that the petitioner misbehaved with subordinate officers, created groupism, and made baseless allegations against disciplined personnel, disrupting the administration. Despite warnings, his behavior did not improve. As a result, on August 22, 2023, the petitioner was transferred from 4BN/RPSF/New Jalpaiguri to 1st Battalion in Page 6 of 13 Lumding, Assam. Moreover, the Sr. DSC/RPF of Lunding, looking after the charge of 1st Battalion, has sent confidential reports on September 7 and 9, 2024, after visiting G Company, which was stationed at Jiribam and Silchar. During a security conference, a lack of discipline within the unit/Company was noted, particularly with the petitioner. He was found involved in factional activities and unnecessary discussions that undermined the company's cohesion.
The petitioner had a history of misconduct, including an assault incident during his previous posting in the 4th Battalion, which led to his transfer. More troubling, at the security conference, he made an inflammatory statement, referencing a recent incident where a fellow constable died by shooting himself, which was seen as instigating and harmful to the force's discipline.
Based on these concerns, the Sr. DSC recommended petitioner's transfer to improve discipline within the unit. Consequently, on September 19, 2024, the petitioner was transferred from the 1st Battalion/RPSF/Lumding to 11th Battalion in Garhara, Bihar in the interest of administration and to ensure the best standards of discipline and to prevent any serious incident in the Force.
8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the deponent states that the petitioner was transferred from 4BN/RPSF/NJP to 1BN/RPSF/LMG due to his indiscipline activity vide letter dated 22/08/23 administration grounds. In this connection, he was taken up for departmental action U/R-153 of RPF Rules, 1987 for improving his behavior by competent authority of 4BN/RPSF/NJP. He was punished for such serious indiscipline activity as per RPF Rules, 1987 vide order dated 23/03/23. After posting in 'G' Coy/1BN, there was no change in nature of the above said petitioner. Despite repeated warning by Company Commander "G" Coy/BN, he did not change his behavior. Subsequently, the Sr. DSC/RPF/Lumding, who was looking after the charge of CO/1BN, submitted confidential reports dated 07/09/24 and 09/09/24. In his reports, he detailed his visit to 'G' Page 7 of 13 Coy/1BN, which was deployed at Jiribam and Silchar outposts. During his visit, a security conference was conducted, and it was observed that there was a noticeable lack of discipline within the company.
Particularly concerning was the conduct of the petitioner, he was found to be involved in factional activities and unnecessary conversations that were detrimental to the cohesion of the company. The petitioner had a previous incident of assault while serving in 4BN/RPSF/NJP, which had resulted his transfer to 1BN/RPSF/LMG from 4BN on administrative grounds.
9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 6,7,8,9 and 10 of the writ petition, the deponent while re-iterates and re-affirms the statements made in the preceding paragraphs of the instant affidavit states that the Sr. DSC/RPF/Lumding, who was looking after the charge of CO/1BN, has sent confidential reports dated 07/09/24 and 09/09/24. In his reports, he detailed his visit to G Coy/1BN, which was deployed at Jiribam and Silchar outposts. During his visit, a security conference was conducted, and it was observed that there was a noticeable lack of discipline within the company. Particularly concerning the conduct of the petitioner, he was found to be involved in factional activities and unnecessary conversations that were detrimental to the cohesion of the company. The petitioner had a previous incident of assault while serving in 4BN/RPSF/NJP, which had resulted in his transfer to 1BN/RPSF/LMG on administrative grounds.
More alarmingly, during the security conference, the petitioner made an open statement referencing extreme actions, similar to the tragic incident involving CT Sanuj Panwar, who had died by shooting himself on 02/09/24. This statement was seen as highly instigating and damaging to the force's discipline.
In light of above observations, the Sr. DSC/RPF/LMG recommended petitioner's transfer for administrative reasons, believing that a change in the environment could help prevent further issues within the company. The recommendation was intended to restore order and discipline within the unit as strict Page 8 of 13 discipline and good conduct is vital for smooth functioning in Armed Force.
Consequently, the petitioner of 1BN/G Coy was transferred from 1st Battalion/RPSF/Lumding, Assam to 11BN/RPSF/Garhara (Bihar) on administrative ground vide letter dated 19/09/24 The petitioner was also advised to not to spread groupism and disaffection among force personnel. If he continues with his activities, he would be taken up strictly under extant D&AR Rules. He should treat this transfer as an opportunity to start afresh, break free from his past legacy and improve his conduct. This will also remove local entanglements and provide another opportunity to the petitioner to start afresh. The order did not intend to penalize him but to save his livelihood and career. Had he been allowed to continue in his present post, in all likelihood, he would have involved himself and some of his colleagues in some major misconduct which would have resulted not only in them losing their livelihood, but would also have led to tarnishing the image of the force. Hence, the order made was reformative in nature, not punitive."
12. It is evident from the afore-extracted paragraphs that the confidential report received from the Commanding Officer of the 4th Battalion, where the petitioner was posted prior to his transfer to the 1st Battalion, highlights the involvement of the petitioner in activities that undermine discipline and foster disaffection within the force. In fact, from the letter dated 20.07.2023 enclosed as Annexure-A to the said affidavit-in- opposition, it is further evident that the petitioner was warned to be more careful in the future and not to indulge in spreading disaffection among the force personnel, casting aspersions on the administrative decisions, and instigating force personnel to indulge in indiscipline and insubordination. It is further evident that the petitioner was alleged to be indulging in creating casteism and groupism in the company Page 9 of 13 and also alleged to have made false accusations against other staff members, causing significant administrative difficulties and disruption of smooth functioning of office operations, mess management, and duty allocations within the company. It is further alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with subordinate officers. It is further evident that despite warnings, since the petitioner did not improve, he was subsequently transferred from the 4th Battalion to the 1st Battalion, Lumding, Assam. It is further evident that even while the petitioner was stationed at the 1st Battalion, he was found involved in factional activities and unnecessary discussions that undermined the company's cohesion. It is further alleged that during a security conference, the petitioner made an inflammatory statement referencing a recent incident where a fellow constable died by shooting himself, thereby instigating harm to the force's discipline. It is further evident that, based on these concerns, the senior DSC/RPF of Lumding recommended the petitioner's impugned transfer to improve discipline within the force. Accordingly, the impugned transfer was issued.
13. A plain reading of the impugned transfer order does not indicate any finding of guilt being recorded or any penalty being imposed. However, an order becomes punitive not merely when a statutory penalty is imposed, but when it is founded on imputations and it carries stigmatic recitals affecting reputation and service standing. The references in the impugned order to groupism, disobedience, indiscipline, counselling, and warning of disciplinary action unmistakably Page 10 of 13 attribute blame and misconduct. Such languages travel beyond administrative necessity.
14. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is stigmatic and founded on alleged misconduct. I am thus of the unhesitant view that the same is punitive in nature. Having found the transfer order to be punitive and stigmatic, the petitioner had a right to notice of allegations. It is an admitted position that no show-cause notice or enquiry is held. The action thus violates principles of natural justice. The respondents ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings; instead, a penal consequence has been imposed under the camouflage of transfer. Transfer cannot be used as a substitute for disciplinary proceedings.
15. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is illegal and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order dated 19.09.2024 is hereby set aside and quashed.
16. Though this Court has held the impugned transfer order to be illegal, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already joined the transferred post and has been working there for almost more than 1 year and 3 months. It is further brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that another incumbent has since been posted in the petitioner's former place of posting. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable. Even after holding an administrative action to be illegal, the court is not bound to grant consequential relief in a manner Page 11 of 13 that balances legality with practical realities, administrative exigencies, and intervening equities. Relief in service jurisprudence is therefore not automatic but depends upon the facts of each case. When subsequent events have altered the situation or third-party rights have been intervened, the court may tailor the relief to avoid administrative dislocation while still correcting the illegality. In short, the courts exercising writ jurisdiction are empowered to mold relief in the interest of justice. [Refer: - U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd., and Anr. vs. Uday Narain Pandey, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479, State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, reported in 2010 12 SCCC 538, and B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749].
17. In the facts of the subsequent events as indicated above, restoration of the petitioner to the previous battalion would disturb administrative arrangements and affect third- party rights. Hence, relief in the instant case consequent to setting aside of the transfer order requires molding in view of subsequent events.
18. Accordingly, it is clarified that setting aside of the impugned transfer order shall not automatically entitle the petitioner to restoration to his previous place of posting. The petitioner having already joined the transferred post and having worked there for a considerable period, and another incumbent having since been posted at the former place of posting, restoration at this stage would disturb administrative arrangements and third-party rights. Hence, the declaration of Page 12 of 13 illegality is confined to removing the stigmatic and punitive character of the order and protecting the petitioner's service record. Posting and future placement of the petitioner shall remain within the administrative domain of the competent authority to be exercised in accordance with law.
19. It is further clarified that the observations in the impugned transfer order relating to groupism, indiscipline, and misconduct shall not be treated as adverse remarks and shall not affect the petitioner's service record. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a representation for the posting of his choice, which shall be considered by the competent authority, in accordance with law.
20. It is furthermore clarified that this order shall not prevent the respondents from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law.
21. With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pranab Digitally by Pranab signed Chand Chandra Date:
Das 2026.02.04 ra Das 00:57:51 +05'30' Page 13 of 13