Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Vinod Kumar Meena S/o Babu Lal Meena – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
1. Heard Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sharma, learned CGC appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner who is serving as constable under the administrative control of Northeast Frontier Railway, Maligaon, calls into question the transfer order dated 19.09.2024 whereby he has been transferred from 1st Battalion Railway Protection Special Force, Lumding, Karbi Anglong, Assam, to 11th Battalion of Railway Protection Special Force, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
3. The challenge is primarily on the ground that the impugned transfer, though styled as an administrative transfer, is in substance a punitive transfer, issued without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Mr. I. Rafique, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned transfer order attributes to the petitioner involvement in groupism, disobedience of senior officers, and creation of indiscipline. The impugned transfer order advises counselling and warns of serious disciplinary action. These recitals make the impugned order stigmatic. He further submits that the
Transfer orders that are punitive in nature must uphold principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing prior to their issuance.
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer.
A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transferred from one place to another, and the court should not interfere with a....
An order of transfer cannot be effected as a mode of punishment and cannot be on stigmatic grounds.
The court considered the principles of Karma and the reformative theory of punishment in balancing disciplinary action with the well-being of the petitioner, a police officer.
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.
The court emphasized that transfer orders should not be interfered with unless they are shown to be vitiated by malafide or made in violation of any statutory provision or issued by an incompetent pe....
The transfer was not punitive, and the transfer policy did not confer a legally enforceable right.
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
