Burden of proving mala fides in transfer orders is high; transfers made in public interest are generally not subject to judicial intervention unless proven arbitrary.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The Petitioner before this Court - is a retired employee, has filed the instant Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") in O.A. No. 1158 of 2014 ("Impugned Order").Vide the Impugned Order, the Ld. CAT has refused to interfere with the Orders dated 31.12.2013 and 26.02.2014 whereby the Petitioner was transferred to the North East Frontier Railways as a Chief Bridge Engineer ("transfer orders").

2. Vide this instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for this Court to quash the Impugned Order, set aside the transfer orders and direct the Respondents to restore the posting of the Petitioner to the same post he was holding prior to 26.02.2014. Further, to grant any other relief(s) as we deem fit.

3. This is an old matter concerning the manner in which the Petitioner was transferred from his post at the relevant point in time. The Petitioner was a Senior Administrative Grade ("SAG") officer of the 1981 batch of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers ("IRSE"), a Group A service of the Indian Railways. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the filing of this Writ, the Petitioner has superannuated. Vide Order dated 02.12.2015, this Court had recorded the statement of the Petitioner that since he was nearing retirement, he had no objection to serve at his place of posting at the time. However, he was aggrieved in the manner his transfer orders had been passed, alleging that the same is hit by mala fides. Subsequently when this case was heard on 27.04.2017, it had been categorically held by a Division Bench of this Court that the only issue left for adjudication in these proceedings was the alleged mala fide manner of transfer of the Petitioner and therefore, for the purpose of adjudication of this case, we shall be confining our findings on the same.

4. Before delving into the facts surrounding the dispute or the manner in which the transfer orders of the Petitioner were passed through which the Petitioner is attempting to show mala fide on part of the Respondents, an understanding of the term "mala fide" itself would be essential. At this juncture it would be useful to refer to the landmark judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1974) 4 SCC 3. The same was a case wherein the Petitioner, an Indian Administrative Service Officer in the Cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, praying for a direction to the Respondents to re-post him to the Post of Chief Secretary in the State of Tamil Nadu. One of the grounds alleged by the Petitioner was that the Chief Minister acted mala fide in removing the Petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. Justice P.N. Bhagwati as he was then, speaking for himself, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud and Justice Krishna Iyer had held as under -

"85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation of Articles 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of opportun