JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in the order dated 10.03.2023 in O.A.No.739/2022 and the order dated 21.11.2023 in OA/310/00739/2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quashing the same.)

R. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, by order dated 10.03.2023 and 21.11.2023 in O.A.No.739 of 2022.

2. The short facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition reads as follows:

(i) That the writ petitioner was working as Chief Manger (Technical) at Central Institute of Petrochemicals Engineering & Technology (in short 'CIPET'), Chennai. From the said post, he has been transferred and re-designated as Director & Head at CIPET, CSTS Imphal, Manipur by order dated 29.07.2022. In the very order of transfer and re-designation dated 29.07.2022, a relieving order also has been mentioned thereby on that date he has been relieved, however a formal relieving order was issued on 1 st August 2022 by the Director & Head, CIPET to the writ petitioner.

(ii) Challenging these orders, the writ petitioner filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai on 05.08.2022. By the said order, the Tribunal given liberty to the writ petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the respondents within a period of 10 days and a direction also was given that on receipt of such representation, the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months.

(iii) Accordingly the representation had been given by the writ petitioner on 14.08.2022. The said representation having been considered, the 2 nd respondent i.e., the Director General passed a speaking order on 24.08.2022 whereby the plea raised by the writ petitioner in the said representation having been considered was rejected.

(iv) Challenging these orders including the speaking order, the writ petitioner had filed the original application second time in O.A.No.739 of 2022. The said OA was decided by a Division Bench of the CAT, Chennai on 10.03.2023 where the Administrative Member decided the issue in favour of the applicant/writ petitioner and the Judicial Member decided in favour of the respondent/employer. Therefore, this was referred to a third Member of the CAT, Chennai, who, by order dated 21.11.2023, concurred the view taken by the Judicial Member thereby supporting the employer and dismissing the original application. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Heard Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. He has raised three grounds against the orders which were impugned passed by the Department before the Tribunal and also the order impugned passed by the Tribunal.

4. The first ground raised by the learned counsel was that, there has been a mala fide on the part of the respondents in passing the order of transfer transferring the writ petitioner from Chennai to Imphal. The second ground raised by him was that, the writ petitioner/applicant is having a 26 years old female child with special disability and the writ petitioner/applicant is the main care giver to the said child, therefore that necessitated for the applicant/writ petitioner to stay with his child with special disability and therefore as per the protection given under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court as well as the DOP&T OM has been issued in that respect, such kind of care giver shall not be subjected to transfer was the second ground raised by him.

5. The third ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/applicant is that, the impugned transfer order is a punitive order as it has b