ORDER :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 has raised an issue of maintainability of the present writ petition as indicated in the order dated 01.07.2021. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 has also reiterated the same point. Hence, the Court is inclined to hear the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 and learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 first, having raised the preliminary issue on maintainability.

2. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing on instructions for the respondent no. 7 and Mr. C. Baruah, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6. Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC appearing for respondent no. 1 is present. Also heard Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 has submitted that the petitioner is an officer of the respondent no. 2. By referring to Appendix-VI of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as amended, it is submitted that the said appendix is under Rule 154(b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, which provides for Classification of cases subject wise/ department wise. It is submitted that services under NHAI, under the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and National Highways is included at serial no. 50 of Sub-para (D) of Schedule-VI, which contains list of corporations/societies/other authorities within the purview of Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

4. It is further submitted that in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, the Special Bench of the Supreme Court with coram of Seven Judges had laid down, inter alia, that the Tribunals will continue to act as the Court of first instance and that would not be open to the litigants to directly approach the High Court. It is submitted that the said legal proposition was reiterated in the subsequently decided case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. Vs. Subhas Sharma, (2002) 4 SCC 145. The learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 has adopted the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in course of time, the Supreme Court of India has settled the legal proposition that in the event the order of transfer is tainted with mala fides, or if the transfer is by way of punishment, or is illegal, or in colourable exercise of power in retaliation of complaints made against the very officials who have triggered the transfer, the High Court would have power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such an unsustainable order. It is submitted that the proposition which was argued by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 was a general legal proposition, but transfer of an employee is again a specialized branch of service law and the ratio of the cases cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 7 would not come in the way of this Court to interfere with the impugned transfer order. By referring to the statements made in the writ petition, it is submitted that in this case in hand, the transfer of the petitioner was bad, tainted with mala fide, illegal and unsustainable on facts and in law, because (i) the transfer was by way of punishment on the fourth day after submitting complaint letter against the respondent no. 7; (ii) the transfer was with an intention to protect the respondent no. 7 from corruption charges; (iii) the transfer was made to facilitate destruction of all evidence against the respondent no. 7; (iv) the transfer of the petitioner was in violation of the OM under File no. 28034/9/2009-Estt.(A) dated 30.09.2009 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India, which provided that if one spouse was working under