Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

The petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant in O.A. No. 180/00416/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. He initially joined the Postal Department in 1982 and came up in ranks to be a Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. While he was working at Palakkad, in 2014 the petitioner was deputed and posted as Passport Officer at Malappuram, the tenure being three years, as seen from Annexure A1.

2. On 20.07.2015, the petitioner was suspended under Rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: he had been in judicial custody for more than 24 hours on his having been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the charge of corrupt practices. Assailing Annexure A3 order of suspension, the petitioner filed Annexure A4 departmental appeal, which resulted in his reinstatement through Annexure A5. In fact, the appellate authority revoked the petitioner's suspension through Annexure A6 order dated 08.12.2015, and later he was repatriated. But before the petitioner could be repatriated, perhaps in anticipation, he submitted Annexure A7 representation to the authorities pleading that if the petitioner was to be repatriated, he should be given reasonable time; then, Annexure A6 order of repatriation followed. Eventually, through Annexure A11, the petitioner was allotted to Odisha Circle. Assailing Annexure A6 order of repatriation and Annexure A11 allotment to Odisha Circle, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 180/00416/2016. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, through its order dated 12.01.2017, refused to interfere. Further aggrieved, the petitioner is before us.

3. Sri N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the Tribunal's Ext.P4 order on two grounds: (1) the repatriation is without any reasons; (2) the petitioner's allotment to Odisha Circle, when about five vacancies are available within the State of Kerala, is totally vindictive and perverse.

4. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned Senior counsel has taken us through the record, especially Annexures A6 and A11 orders. According to him, both the orders are cryptic sans any reason or justification why, in the first place, the petitioner was repatriated and allotted to a distant circle. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the deputation was neither random nor whimsical: the Department had called for options from eligible employees, subjected them to rigorous selection process, and eventually deputed the successful candidates. As seen from Annexure A2, the deputation, contends the learned Senior Counsel, is tenurial. In this context, he has placed reliance on Union of India and another v. S.N. Maity and another, (2015) 4 SCC 164 to hammer home his contention that the authorities cannot lightly interfere with tenurial deputations.

5. The learned Senior Counsel, in the alternative, has submitted that given the tenure of deputation, the petitioner has legitimately expected that he would be continued in his new assignment until the period of deputation came to an end. In other words, Exts.P6 and P11 orders defeat the petitioner's legitimate expectation.

6. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal's Ext.P4 order is unassailable. The Tribunal, according to him, has supplied cogent reasons why it has refused to interfere. In elaboration, the learned ASGI has further contended that every transfer cannot be branded punitive merely because an employee has been facing criminal prosecution. It is well established, asserted the learned ASGI, that the administrative exigencies may entail the employer to transfer its staff in the best interest of administration. He emphasizes a well-established legal principle: in a writ of certiorari, the judicial intervention is very limited. And this Court has always been loath to interdict any administrative measure which aids the administrative efficacy. He, therefore, urges us to dismiss t