Administrative transfers cannot be challenged on grounds of malice in law; only malice in fact is relevant when considering the legality of such orders.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Under assail is the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench (hereinafter called as ‘CAT’) in O.A.No.1537 of 2024. The order of transfer, transferring the 1^st respondent from Chennai to Patna vide proceedings dated 21.10.2024 was under challenging in the Original Application before the CAT. Since CAT allowed the Original Application by set aside the order of transfer, the Union of India preferred the present writ petition.

2. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr.A.RL.Sundaresan, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners would mainly contend that it is an order of transfer passed in the interest of administration. Order of transfer was passed on account of the reason that the competent authority found that there was a requirement in Patna Centre and the 1^st respondent, being a Senior Scientist was transferred for better utilisation of his service at Patna Centre.

3. To assail the impugned order of CAT, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India would contend that relieving an employee on issuance of transfer with immediate effect, cannot be found fault. The CAT considered the said ground which is untenable. On an earlier occasion, the 1^st respondent was removed from service based on a disciplinary proceedings and subsequently, reinstated. The said ground is unconnected with the order of an administrative transfer. Not following the seniority list in the matter of transfer, is irrelevant and the CAT considering these grounds, set aside the transfer order and therefore, the present writ petition is to be allowed.

4. Regarding the malafide ground raised by the 1^st respondent, the competent authority, Director General has approved the administrative transfer and there is no allegation of malafide against the Director General who approved the transfer order. While approving the administrative transfer, the Director General has clearly observed that,

1. C-DAC Patna, which is currently involved in several critical projects require an experienced hand, preferably at senior level, to assist Centre Head Patna.

2. Shri Sridharan V, Scientist F, Emp.No.100632, whose transfer was put on hold in the last redeployment exercise be transferred to C-DAC Patna in the interest of the organisation with immediate effect.

5. It is contended that the 2^nd respondent, the then Director at Chennai Centre had not recommended the name of the 1^st respondent for transfer nor forwarded his name for transfer. The approval of transfer is an independent act of the Director General for better administration. Therefore, the CAT has committed an error in setting aside the order of an administrative transfer.

6. In response, Mr.Vijayshankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent would submit that the case on hand is a case of malafide wherein the Senior Scientist has been transferred from Chennai to Patna. There are several instances to establish that friction existed between the respondents 1 and 2. The 1^st respondent made several complaints regarding financial irregularities in the Centre at Chennai against the 2^nd respondent. He has given sexual harassment complaint also, since the 2^nd respondent had involved in making certain obscene statements against the women employees. Internal Complaint Committee constituted conducted enquiry into the complaint made by women employees. Several allegations relating to purchase had been made against the 2nd respondent by the 1^st respondent. Being the Senior Scientist in Chennai Centre, he made several representations to the competent authority for ini