Goda Raghuram, J.

The writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-04-2004 of the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No. 1392 of 2003.

The respondent filed the application before the Tribunal challenging an order dated 13-11-2003 of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Secunderabad, transferring the petitioner, a Traveling Ticket Examiner from Secunderabad Division to Nanded Division on “administrative grounds”. Though the order of transfer did not set out any reason which could characterize the transfer as punitive or comment on the reputation of the respondent-employee, in the counter affidavit to the respondent’s application, the writ petitioners pleaded that the transfer was on account of an incident which took place in a school administered by the Railway Women’s Welfare Organization wherein the respondent was allegedly involved in an altercation with the watchman of the school, along with his wife and children. Though no complaint in this behalf was received from the school, on coming to learn about the incident, the order of transfer was passed.

Before the Tribunal, the transfer was challenged on several grounds including the incompetence of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer to transfer the respondent from one Railway division to another. The Tribunal rejected the challenge on the ground of competence on finding that the order though passed by the Senior DPO was on the basis of file orders passed by the Chief Personal Officer, who was competent to order a transfer from one division to another. The Tribunal however invalidated the order of transfer on the ground that it was issued not in administrative interest or for administrative reasons, but for extraneous reasons and in violation of principles of natural justice, by misusing the discretionary power of the Senior DPO.

Sri Rajiv Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath (2004 (2) SLR 15) to contend that though the motive for the transfer may have been the event in the school where the respondent-employee was involved in an altercation with the watchman of the school, the basis for the action as apparent from the order of transfer is ‘administrative exigency’ and no adverse comment is recorded in the order as would impinge on the reputation of the respondent and hence on well settled principles, that an order of transfer is not punitive per se, neither is an enquiry or compliance with the principles of natural justice required nor is a neutral order of transfer liable to be invalidated only on account of non-compliance with the audi alteram partem principle.

In the facts of the case in Janardhan Debanath (1 supra), the respondents were employed in the Postal Services Department and were transferred from Agartala Division to Meghalaya Division by the order impugned therein. On challenge to the order of transfer, the Gauhati Bench of the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider the representations made without however interfering with the order of transfer. Aggrieved thereby the transferees filed a writ petition. The High Court interfered and the Union filed an appeal by Special Leave. The order of transfer that fell for consideration by the Supreme Court in this case noted that the transfer was made since the conduct of employees of the Postal Department was “un-desirable”. On facts it would appear that the transferees had misbehaved with the Director (Postal Services), a senior lady officer; confined and dragged her from one room to another with a view to force her to withdraw the charge sheet against the Deputy Postmaster; apart from abusing her in filthy language and physically manhandling her. While allowing the appeals and reversing the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the allegations against the transferees were serious in nature and the conduct alleged was certainly “u