Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.,] (1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 6.

(2)The petitioner, who is employed as the Chief Ticket Checking Inspector, http://www.judis.nic.in Arakonam Railway Station, made a challenge to the Order of Transfer dated 24.01.2017 passed by the 6th respondent in transferring him to TVC Division, by filing OA.No.1259/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, / the 1st respondent herein and the Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 17.12.2019, has dismissed the Original Application and challenging the legality of the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3)A perusal of the materials would disclose the following facts:-

 The petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and was appointed on Compassionate Ground as Ticket Collector with effect from 09.03.1987. The petitioner was initially posted at Sanitorium Railway Station at Chennai Division and was transferred to Villivakkam Railway Station on the same Scale of Pay and got his promotions as Senior Ticket Collector in the year 1993 and Head Ticket Collector in the year 1999 and the said post was re-designated as Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector by the Railway Board and he was promoted to the post of Chief Ticket Checking Inspector with a Grade pay of Rs.4,600/- which is a post of supervisory character.  The petitioner would submit that Public Announcement System was http://www.judis.nic.in installed in his office which started creating nuisance and therefore, they represented the same to the 7th respondent who was the Station Manager of Arakonam Railway Station and it was rejected by the 7th respondent and the matter was taken up before the 6th respondent who passed an order for removal of the Public Announcement System and enraged by the same, the 7th respondent herein had developed vengeance against the petitioner herein.

 The 7th respondent herein/6th respondent in the Original Application, vide Order of Transfer dated 24.01.2017, had transferred him to Trivandrum Division and he was not allowed to perform his duty from 25.01.2017.

 The petitioner filed OA.No.908/2017 to quash the Order of Transfer http://www.judis.nic.in dated 24.01.2017 before the 1st respondent/Tribunal and however, restricted his prayer to consider and dispose of his representation dated 25.01.2017 and the Tribunal, vide order dated 19.06.2017, had disposed of the said Original Application, by directing the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2017 in accordance with the rules within the stipulated period.  The said representation was considered by the 6th respondent herein, who vide impugned communication dated 21.07.2017, has rejected the said request and making a challenge to the same, the petitioner filed OA.No.1259/2017 before the 1st respondent/Tribunal.  Respondents 1 to 5 therein, had filed a common Reply Statement, refuting the allegations made in the Original Application and they averred among other things that during the departmental check conducted on 31.10.2016, it was detected that the petitioner had indulged in malpractices and in terms of the Policy Circulars issued by the Ministry of Railways, in Letters No..E [NG]I-98/TR/11 dated 30.10.1998 and 02.11.1998 respectively, which are based upon public policy, stipulate that ticket checking staff as also the other staff in mass contract areas should be transferred on inter-divisional basis where they are detected to be indulging in malpractices and that apart, http://www.judis.nic.in under Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code also, the competent authority is vest with the power to transfer a Railway Servant in the exigencies of service and the order of transfer of the petitioner was purely on the basis of the said Letters and Rule 226 of the IREC. Insofar as the stand taken by the petitioner that paragraph No.14[a] of the Master Circular No.67 and paragraph No.II of the Master Circular No.64 have application, it is the stand of the official respondents that the said provisions have no application for the reason that the petitioner had been transferred only after revocation of the suspension order and not during the currency of the suspension.  The Tribunal, after taking note of the rival submissions and consideration of the materials placed, found that though the petitioner made a plea that his Order of Transfer was made on account of the mala fide and oblique motive, he had failed to show prima facie that the respondents were on enmity due to the alleged incident and recorded the finding that the petitioner / Original Applicant had failed to show the mala fide behind the Transfer Order.

(9)Now, coming to the legality of the Order of Transfer, the Railway Administration has issued a Supplementary Circular No.7 to MC.No.24 RBE No.251/1998 which deals with Inter-Divisional Transfer of Ticket Checking Staff and other Staff in mass contact area and it is relevant to extract the same:-

''Subject:- Inter-divisional transfer of ticket checking staff and other staff in mass contact area.