S.P. Talukdar, J. - (1.) In response to the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the two cases relate to identical facts and points of law, both are taken up at a time. In W.P. No. 10972 (W) of 2006, the writ petitioner sought for revocation/cancellation/withdrawal of the inter -divisional transfer order dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway as well as further direction for not giving any further effect to the said order. The facts of the case being W.P. No. 10972 (W) of 2006 may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner, Md. Abdul Hanan Kabiraj, is an Assistant Sub Inspector, Railway Protection Force of Eastern Railway. He was given promotion to the rank of ASI on ad -hoc basis with effect from 23rd September, 1996. He was however not reverted to the substantive posts and was allowed to continue in the promotional post for about 9 years at a stretch without any break. Those who were promoted with him on ad -hoc basis as ASI, RPF were given retiral benefits in the pay scale of Assistant Sub Inspector. The petitioner was denied such benefit.
(2.) The petitioner through his advocate submitted a representation in the form of 'demand justice'. The respondent No. 2, being the Chief Security Commissioner, directed one Inspector to look into the matter. The said Inspector submitted a report after enquiry on 5.4.2005 thereby supporting the stand of the writ petitioner. But ignoring such report, the writ petitioner was given regular promotion in the post of ASI with effect from 1st July, 2004 under the restructuring scheme and on promotion, he was given posting at S.I.B., Headquarter, Easter Railway on being transferred from Metro Railway. The writ petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 10521 (W) of 2005 against such decision of the authority being respondent No. 2 dated 18th March, 2005. On 23rd March, 2006 a Surakha Sammelon was held at RPF Camp Liluah, Howrah. The petitioner took such opportunity and ventilated his grievances before the Director General, RPF. The respondent No. 2 sought for an answer from respondent No. 3 in the open meeting and requested him to take necessary remedial action. This annoyed the respondent No. 3, who out of vengeance issued the premature transfer order dated 25th April, 2006 whereby the petitioner had been shifted to Chittaranjan Locomotive Works. He was not served with such order of transfer but was given the letter showing that he had been spared. The petitioner claimed that he joined on RPF Post, S.I.B., Head Quarter, Calcutta on 1.4.2005 on being transferred from Metro Railway by an order dated 18.3.2005. He had completed only one year at such place of posting. Out of 376 Assistant Sub Inspectors who were promoted along with the present petitioner, he had only been singled out and picked up for transfer to another division by way of punishment. Except six or seven A.S.Is out of total 376, all others had been continuing in their present places of posting.
(3.) Rule 93.1 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 empowers the Director General, R.P.F. to frame Standing Order prescribing tenure of posting of the enrolled members of the Force at one post. In terms of the said Rule, Standing Order No. 70 dated 27.9.2004 was issued thereby fixing five years as prescribed tenure at one post. Thus, the order of transfer under challenge is contrary to Rule 93.1 and Rule 93.2 of R.P.F. Rules, 1987 and Standing Order No. 70 dated 27.9.2004. The authority concerned did not mention about any extraordinary circumstances or any grave reason for issuance of such impugned transfer order, which was issued in clear defiance of the relevant Rules and Standing Order. Such impugned order thus suffers from mala fide and it is in violation of the statutory rules/regulations.;