Karnataka High Court
Sri S C Doddamani vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2022
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.13699/2022 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SRI S.C. DODDAMANI
S/O LATE SRI LAXMAN DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE/GD
HAVING CISF NO.994850115
WORKING AT URSC
VIMANAPURA, OLD AIRPORT ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 017. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANTH H.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NORTH BLOCK,
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CISF HEADQUARTERS
NO.13, CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 003.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
DOS DAE, HEAD QUARTERS,
CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI - 110 003.
2
4. THE OFFICE OF THE SR. COMMANDANT,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURTIY FORCE UNIT
URSC,
BENGALURU - 560 017
WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE/GD
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SENIOR COMMANDANT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CGSC)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 28.03.2022, BEARING NO.E-38014/21/38TH/1ST-
2022/PLACE-TWP/2022/1203 PASSED BY THE R4, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order at Annexure-A dated 28.03.2022.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Head Constable under the command of the 4th respondent and that he is now in his 2nd tenure in terms of Clause-12(b) of Annexure-H which are guidelines for Posting / Transfer of CISF Personnel (NGOs - Constables, HCs, ASIs, SIs, and Inspectors) in various Sectors of CISF as per Circular No.22/2017.
3
3. It comes out from the records that the petitioner has spent 14 years 5 months and 2 days in the Home Zone.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for respondent that, at present the petitioner is due for his 3rd tenure and hence, he is required to be posted outside the home sector.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been suffering from ailments and the advice at Annexure-F of the Medical Board of the respondent, Central Industrial Security Force itself provides as follows:
"Avoid firing/driving/night duties and jobs which requires accurate and frequent / rapid firing. Regular light exercise and diet management."
6. It is submitted that in light of his medical condition as is evident from Annexure-F, posting is required to be made appropriately. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in the midst of medical treatment and is still to complete his course of treatment as per Annexure-K, which reads as follows:
4
"This has reference to the letter dated 11.01.2022 received from Senior Commandant, CISF, URSC in respect of Shri. S. C. Doddamani, CT/GD, Staff No.994850115, CISF posted at DOS/ISRO Centre/Unit at Bangalore seeking permission to undergo Right Eye Intravitreal Pagenaz/Eylea Injection for three doses at M/s. Narayana Nethralaya Hospital, Bangalore (CHSS recognised) for self.
The request has been examined and the competent Authority has agreed to permit Shri. S. C. Doddamani to undergo Right Eye Intravitreal Pagenax/Eylea injection for three doses at M/s. Narayana Nethralaya Hospital, Bangalore (CHSS recognised) for self as advised by the specialist.
The approval shall be restricted to
a) Charges towards the medicine - at actuals.
b) Procedure charges - as per CHSS rates The CISF employee may be informed accordingly."
7. It is submitted by the respondent that the said request of the petitioner has been considered as per the 5 Details of Grievances at Unit produced along with the memo dated 15.07.2022.
8. It is contended by the petitioner that there has been recommendation for deferment of posting in light of the medical ailment as pointed out at Annexure-F and the final order of rejection refers to such recommendations of the DOS Zone-I Bangalore (Zone) and ISAC Bangalore (Unit) and despite the recommendation by both the Authorities, the rejection is by recording "Regretted" without considering his genuine grievance.
9. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in terms of the procedure laid down, the representation has been considered after due application of mind insofar as the petitioner's request at Annexure-G dated 16.05.2022.
10. Petitioner has made out a case for deferment regarding his order of transfer on the ground that he has to undergo certain procedures to remove blockage in his heart. 6 It is further submitted that he had undergone heart operation on 26.04.2022 in light of which representation dated 16.05.2022 has been made out.
11. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the last date for considering representation was 14.04.2022 insofar as the general transfer as is reflected at Annexure-A and his earlier plea regarding his ailment at Annexure-F has already been considered. The document at Annexure-E is a certificate reflecting the treatment and is dated 10.05.2022 which is self-explanatory insofar as the earlier ailment is concerned and the same has already been considered by the respondent as per the document at Page No.12 produced along with the memo dated 15.07.2022. However, as regards his heart ailment, as is evident from Annexure- D, said aspect is still to be considered as the said ailment is subsequent to the last date fixed for consideration of representation.
12. In case of medical emergencies, request of the petitioner as per Annexure-G keeping in mind the medical 7 condition as is evident from Annexures-D and E is to be considered by the respondents. Such consideration to be made within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is expected that respondents will take a holistic decision taking all factors in mind. It is needless to state that while considering the representation at Annexure-G, it is open for the respondents to take note of the plea of the petitioner regarding incomplete treatment as regards his earlier ailment. Respondents undertake not to precipitate the order at Annexure-A till such consideration.
13. Accordingly, petition is disposed off. It is clarified that the direction given is on the basis of peculiar facts of the case and is not to be deemed to be a precedent.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP