Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
The Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Sri Kundan Kumar, S/o- Sri Brahmideo Prasad Yadav – Respondent
WP(C) 2460 of 2024
Decided on : 02-12-2024
(A) Transfer Policy - Violation of Transfer Policy dated 31.08.2015 - The Tribunal found the transfer of the respondent from N.F. Railway to South Central Railway to be in violation of the statutory transfer policy, which mandates a minimum tenure of two years and maximum of five years for Group '˜A' officers. The Tribunal observed that the transfer was executed without showing any objective administrative exigency and was motivated by ulterior motives to facilitate another officer's joining. (Paras 8, 19, 30)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that transfer is an incident of service and should not be interfered with unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions. The court found no evidence of mala fides or statutory violation in the transfer order. (Paras 26, 30)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a Group '˜A' officer, was transferred from N.F. Railway to South Central Railway within six months of his posting in Guwahati, which he challenged as a violation of the transfer policy.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was set aside as it was found that the transfer was not in violation of the transfer policy and was justified for career progression.
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer violated the transfer policy and whether it was executed with mala fides.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer policy is not statutory in nature and that the transfer was justified based on administrative exigencies.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’), Guwahati Bench in O.A. No.279/2023 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed on behalf of the respondent herein and has set aside the order dated 05.09.2023 whereby the respondent was transferred from N.F. Railway to South Central Railway and has also quashed the subsequent office orders dated 14.09.2023 and 15.09.2023 whereby the respondent was relieved from the present place of posting.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the respondent joined as Group ‘A’ officer in Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME) on 03.12.2012 and after completion of necessary training, he was posted in Northeast Frontier Railway (N.F. Railway) on 18.06.2014. The respondent was posted at several locations in N.F. Railway, such as Lumding and Dibrugarh and while working as Senior CDO/GHY, he was transferred from Dibrugarh to Guwahati in February, 2023. However, the Railway Board vide order dated 05.09.2023 transferred the respondent from N.F. Railway to South Central Railway. Vide order dated 14.09.2023 issued by the Deputy CPO/GAZ for General Manager (P), it was ordered that Shri Ashok Kumar, Dy.CME/Chg/HQ would look after the post of Sr. CDO/GHY, which was held by the respondent, till regular incumbent is posted. Again vide order dated 15.09.2023, the APO/I/LMG for Divisional Railway Manager (P), N.F. Railway, Lumding ordered that Shri Ashok Kumar, Dy.CME/Chg/HQ would look after the post of Sr. CDO/GHY till regular incumbent is posted.
It is to be noticed that three other officers were also transferred along with the respondent from N.F. Railway to Eastern Railway, East Central Railway and South East Central Railway, respectively.
3. Being aggrieved with the transfer order dated 05.09.2023, the respondent filed an appeal to the General Manager, N.F. Railway raising a grievance regarding his transfer. In the said appeal, the respondent alleged that someone had tried to create conspiracy with bad intention against him to tarnish his image by propagating false information to social media/news media as well as to administration. It was also alleged that since the respondent had denied to commission the BOOT Laundry despite repeated requests made by the firm, however, as the firm has not supplied the basic part of machine, he refused to grant permission and he was targeted after the said incident. In the said appeal, the respondent reiterated that he had worked with full of honesty, ethics and dignity for the benefit of the Indian Railway.
The said appeal dated 07.09.2023 was disposed of by the General Manager (P), N.F. Railway which was communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 14.09.2023 stating that the respondent has been working all alone in N.F. Railway since induction and as he has a long career ahead and has about 20 years of service, for career progression, he requires wide exposures in other Railway also. It was specifically mentioned in the said letter that there was nothing against him on record as submitted in his appeal.
4. After rejection of the appeal by the petitioner N.F. Railway, the respondent moved an application to the N.F. Railway on 25.09.2023 while showing his intention to avail 15 days preparatory leave (PL) for joining in South Central Railway zone.
Soon thereafter, the respondent approached the Tribunal challenging his transfer order.
5. The Tribunal vide order dated 06.10.2023 admitted the original application and directed to maintain status-quo. On 12.10.2023, the respondent preferred another original application, being, O.A. No.302/2023 raising a grievance that despite the stay order passed by the Tribunal on 06.10.2023, Shri Ashok Kumar, Dy. CME/Chg/MLG was posted as Senior CDO/GHY against the existing vacancy vide order dated 10.
The court ruled that transfer orders are administrative decisions and can only be interfered with if proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Transfers of government employees cannot be interfered with unless proven to be mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions; administrative exigencies govern such decisions.
Statutory transfer powers under Rule 226 IREC prevail over policy guidelines; no interference with administrative exigency transfers absent mala fides, despite tenure/policy deviations or personal ha....
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.
Transfers within service are at discretion of authorities based on administrative needs, not strictly bound by service tenure guidelines.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
