Judicial review of administrative actions is limited; transfers and suspensions are permissible unless proven to be mala fide or against established guidelines.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. At the outset I may state, vide this common order I shall decide, W.P.(C) 12674/2019 and connected applications as well as W.P.(C) 4421/2020 and connected applications, as the petitioner is common in both the petitions and the issue raised in the petitions are interconnected.

W.P.(C) 12674/2019

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"A. Quash and set aside the impugned Officer order of respondents (CCRT) issued vide CCRT/11017/07/2019 (Pt)/895 and 896Dated26/11/2019 placed at Annexure P/1 (Colly), declaring as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

B. Direct the respondents (MoC) to constitute committee on respondents (CCRT) to investigate the matter that under which authority respondents (CCRT) has issued this illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory Office Order of transfer and also take necessary disciplinary action against the respondents (CCRT) in accordance to CCS (Conduct) Rules.

C. Issue of Writ Order of Quo-warranto as under which authority Honaray Chairperson has power to promote to the post of Deputy Director to Director.

D. Issue a Writ Order of Prohibition to prohibit/stop the respondents to post out the petitioner from CCRT New Delhi to any other place of India as the W,P (C)-11592/2019 is sub judiced and pending before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of Justice.

E. Issue a Writ Order of Mandamus, quo-warranto and prohibition or any other Writ/Directions/Order as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

F. Award Cost."

3. The petitioner, a post graduate was appointed to the post of Administrative Officer in Group `B' service in Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800 + Grade Pay Rs.4600/- w.e.f. September 12, 2011 (`Appointment Letter', for short) in Centre for Cultural Resources & Training (`CCRT', for short), New Delhi under the Aegis of Ministry of Culture, respondent No.1.

4. The petitioner herein has preferred the present petition for quashing and setting aside the impugned Office Order issued by respondent No. 2 (Director, CCRT) vide CCRT/11017/07/2019 (Pt)/895 AND896 dated November 26, 2019 (`impugned order', for short). It is the case of the petitioner that vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred to the CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur where there is no sanctioned post of an Administrative Officer.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in a complete malafide manner as the petitioner had already preferred a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 1159/2019 against the respondent No.2/CCRT for pay scale anomaly and had also filed a complaint on November 25, 2019, addressed to the PMO.

6. That after the impugned order was issued, the petitioner had preferred a representation to the respondent No.2/CCRT on November 26, 2019 thereby seeking a) copy of policy page for existence of CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur in accordance to Ministry of Culture; and (b) copy of authorized/sanctioned post of Administrative Officer that exist in CCRT Regional Centre, Udaipur.

7. It is his case that, instead of the providing the requisite information, the respondent No.2/CCRT threatened the petitioner by reply dated November 26, 2019, wherein it is stated that instead of complying with the Transfer Order dated 26.11.2019, you are raising frivolous objections. It will be in your interest to proceed with the Transfer Order and do not indulge in any unwarranted correspondence.

8. It is stated by the petitioner that the impugned order is totally illegal, unjust and arbitrary.

9. Co