Indisciplined Officer can be Transferred

Armed forces discipline issues must be addressed in a serious manner and the offending individuals should get the appropriate punishment.

In a decision given by the Kerala High Court, a three-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao declined to reinstate Constable Abrar Ali, who had been fired from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for gross disobedience and his refusal to change. This served as a stern warning to the armed forces in general that no indiscipline will be treated as negligence. 

Judgment by Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court decided on Wednesday that transferring the disobedient officers is a legal way to deal with indiscipline in the armed forces. The three judge bench emphasized that these transfers would guarantee that order is maintained within the force while also guaranteeing that the officer is not subject to criticism.

It was quoted that, in a disciplined force like the CISF, there may be instances where an employee’s continued presence at one station is detrimental to the upkeep of that station’s discipline. In these situations, it may seem prudent to the employer to transfer the employee to a different station so that the dual goals of upholding discipline at one station while also making use of the employee at another station are achieved without casting any doubt on either goal.

The appellant worked for the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and had spent more than ten years in Cochin-based units. She had petitioned the Court to overturn a single judge’s decision sustaining her transfer from Cochin to Narsapur.

The appellant was appointed to the CISF under a compassionate appointment program in 2007. She had been able to make sure that, for the majority of her nearly 4-year tenure, she was assigned to Cochin, with the exception of 7 months. The appellant accomplished this by making numerous motions to the Court over the years and obtaining favorable rulings.

The appellant’s attorneys, Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara and Advocate R. Kishore used this standard once more to reject her transfer. Additionally, they said the transfer order was retaliatory because she had chosen to file a sexual harassment claim against the Assistant Commandant. But ASGI S. Manu, who represented the CISF, emphasized that, in accordance with the rules, the appellant was eligible to be posted anywhere in her “home sector,” which includes any location within the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Telengana, Tamil Nadu, and the Union Territories of Puducherry and Lakshadweep.

Additionally, he provided information about the disciplinary actions being taken against the appellant for disregarding orders from higher authorities. Also mentioned was the fact that she had punishment orders against her, none of which she had appealed.

In a similar vein, the ASGI emphasized that she had not made a formal complaint or brought up any instances of sexual harassment in her arguments against the transfer order, adding that she had abandoned the case after that.

The Bench remembered that it is well established in service law that the employer has the right to transfer an employee in a transferable service, especially in a uniformed service. Except in very rare circumstances where the transfer is perceived to be tainted by statutory infractions, etc., the judiciary has frequently maintained a hands-off posture in such issues.

However, the employer is not compelled to look into any misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an employee because doing so would defeat the whole objective of moving an employee in the public interest or due to administrative necessity to uphold decorum. Furthermore, it was ruled that superiors have the authority to make the proper judgments and transfer officers to a well-organized organization like the CISF. Such transfers cannot be viewed as punitive actions, and the Court has no authority to impede them.

No officer shall have the right to remain at the location of interest indefinitely, the Bench also stated.

The Bench determined that the authorities have the authority to transfer any officer if there are sufficient reasons and that it should be recognized as part of the Service after noting that the appellant had frequently filed cases in an effort to avoid any transfers.

As a result, the transfer was approved and the appeal was denied.