Read Time: 06 minutes

Staying questionable transfer order of the Presiding Officer of an Internal Complaint Committee at CRPF, the Delhi High Court has recently remarked that that the Members of the POSH Committee should have the independence and security of tenure associated with Judicial Tribunals.

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal held, 

“When an officer, by virtue of a post, is also a Presiding Officer or Member of the ICC, ordinarily there should be security of tenure. The principles which apply to security of tenure of Judges and Presiding Officers of various quasi-judicial tribunals would, in our opinion, also apply to Members/Presiding Officers of ICC.”

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India (2014) that any Tribunal to which any existing jurisdiction of Court is transferred should also be a Judicial Tribunal, “the Presiding Officers and Members of ICC, in our view, are also ‘Judges’ within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960,” the Bench stated.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Neeraj Bala, a Commandant at Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Dwarka was also appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Sector Level Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) on May 29, 2019 in accordance with the POSH Act, 2013. In one of the cases before the ICC, the report findings were made out against the DIG of the command.Following the same, the petitioner was transferred from Dwarkato Greater Noida even before completing her tenure of three years. 

It was contended by the petitioner that the said transfer was malafide and motivated on the grounds that the real reason for the transfer is to remove the petitioner as the Presiding Officer of ICC for having named the DIG in her report because otherwise she is entitled to continue as Presiding officer tillremains posted as Commandant in CRPF, Dwarka.

Observations by the Bench

Prima facie, finding merit in the aforesaid contention, the Bench remarked that this argument reinforces the fear that Bench had apprehended i.e. the transfer of the petitioner being punitive. The Bench stated, 

“Undoubtedly, so. However, once the personnel/officer by virtue of a post also occupies the position as aforesaid, the administrative exigencies, in our view, have to be weighed vis-à-vis the consideration of the need for security of tenure, inasmuch as, else there would always be apprehension that on returning unfavourable findings, the sword of transfer would be brought down.”

However, considering the respondent’s plea that the respondent should be permitted to decide upon the representation made by the petitioner against her transfer, the Bench issued notice to CRPF that the decision should be taken and communicated to the petitioner within one week and in the light of Court’s observations. 

With this, the Court stayed the transfer order and listed the matter for further hearing on August 25.

Case Title- Neeraj Bala vs. Union of India & others