SHRI DEBA PRASAD HAZARIKA vs N.F.RAILWAY on 30 September 2026

Order

No. E/116/9/Dsl/Misc. (M), dated 24th of September, 2026 till disposal of the instant Original Application.

II. to direct the respondent authorities to give posting of the applicant at Head Quarter, Maligaon, Guwahati, Assam as the applicant cannot be posted in any other establishment of N. F. Railway for the reason mentioned in Para 4.7 (III) above in light of the

Railway Board in Circular No. 2005/V-1/CVC/1/8, dated May 12, 2006.”

2. The applicant served as Chief Vigilance Inspector from 2021 to 2026 under the Railways. He is aggrieved with the impugned posting order dated 24.09.2026 whereby he has been directed to report to the office of the Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer at Siliguri Diesel Loco Shed (Sr. DME/DSL/SGUJ) as his new place of posting.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant while serving as Chief Vigilance Inspector, has carried out two vigilance check against the present Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Siliguri. Besides that, the applicant also conducted Vigilance investigation against one Shri Rabin De, who was then working in tender section of Diesel Shed Siliguri. And in the Vigilance case resulting from that said Vigilance investigation, major penalty was imposed against Shri Rabin De.

4. The applicant apprehends that if he joins at Siliguri Diesel Shed and compelled him to work under the authority of present Sr. DME/DSL/SGUJ, he would be subject to victimization and harassment both mentally and physically.

He submitted a representation requesting to give posting at the Office of Respondent No. 3 at N. F. Railway Headquarter at Maligaon, but it was rejected and the impugned posting order was issued.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to Para 4 (iii) (a), of the Railway Board Circular dated 12.05.2006 (Annexure A-6), which reproduced as under for clarity:

(iii) Since the problem of victimization occurs, if at all, after the reversion of the personnel to their normal line departments, the Commission would reiterate the following:

(a) On such reversion the vigilance personnel shall not be posted to work under an officer against whom, while working in the vigilance department, he had undertaken verification of complaints or detailed investigation thereafter. Needless to say his ACR shall not be written by such officer(s).

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has therefore pray for interim relief. He fairly submits that a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider his case in the light of the Circular at Annexure A-6 treating this O.A as part of his representation and dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time

7. Sri A. Kundu, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer of the applicant as per rules.

8. In view of the above, we direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the applicant in the light of the Circular dated 12.05.2006 at Annexure A-6 by treating this O.A as part of his representation and communicate their decision by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While deciding the representation of the applicant, respondents shall ensure that he is posted in a place where he has not conducted any vigilance enquiry against the official.

9. Until the representation is decided, we stay the operation of the impugned transfer order dated 24.09.2026 Annexure A-4.

10. Applicant is directed to serve copy of the O.A along with copy of this order to the Respondents within a week.

11. Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

SS