Judicial review of administrative transfers under Article 226 is limited; transfers lack statutory force and can only be challenged on specific grounds such as mala fide or incompetence.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

General governing legal principles for transfer of an employee are that:

1) Transfer is incidental to service and conditions of service.

2) Administrative transfers can be effected in the interest of public administration by the competent Authority.

3) Order of transfer can be challenged on two grounds:

a) mala fide b) by incompetent Authority.

2. The transfer guidelines are issued by the Government to maintain transparency in administration and issuance of transfer, but, those guidelines would not have statutory force.

3. Post or place can never be claimed as a status by an employee. Administrative transfers cannot be interfered with by the Courts. Power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders of the administrative transfers are limited.

4. The Courts are not expected to run routine administration of the Government Departments. It is the prerogative of the Authorities to run administration and to improve the efficiency in public administration. Thus, unnecessary intervention by Courts in administrative transfers may cause prejudice to the interest of public administration.

5. Under assail in the present Writ Petition is the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as “CAT”], Chennai Bench dated 7^th May 2024 in O.A.No.736 of 2023.

6. Union of India, Ministry of Ayush preferred the present Writ Petition. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India would mainly contend that transfer has been issued in lieu of suspension in the present case and more so, the indifferent behaviour and conduct of the 1^st respondent while performing the official duties were taken note of by the Director General and transfer order has been issued. The order of transfer would indicate that pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings in connection with the arrogant behaviour & in-subordination and for lack of devotion to duties, the Director General issued the transfer order transferring the 1^st respondent along with the post from Chennai to Bengaluru. The transfer order has been issued within the power conferred upon the Director General under the bye-laws. The CAT failed to consider the fact that the Government of India, Ministry of Ayush has accorded sanction for transfer of 1^st respondent as Administrative Officer from CCRS, Head Quarters Chennai to SCRU Bengaluru vide proceeding dated 13^th October 2023. When the Government of India has accorded sanction, the grounds raised by the 1^st respondent regarding prior permission to be obtained ought not to have been considered. The CAT has not considered the scope of bye-laws in the matter of transfer of employees. Therefore the order of CAT deserves to be set aside.

7. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent would oppose by stating that the impugned transfer order is punitive in nature. The Director General, who issued the transfer order was holding additional charge. The respondent raised several financial and other irregularities against the Director General and a complaint also has been filed against the Director General. Thus, the Director General ought not to have issued transfer order, since there is a likelihood of bias. The bye-laws of the Central Council for Research in Siddha would also show that prior approval from the competent Authority is required in the present case. Post facto approval granted by the Government of India would not save the validity of the impugned transfer order and thus the CAT has followed correct proposition of law and the writ petition is to be rejected.

8. He would rely on the Office Order dated 21.11.2022 appointing the 2^nd respondent herein as the Director General (Additional Charge). He would solicit the attention of this Court on the bye-laws applicable, which would also show that prior approval from higher Authorities is required to transfer an employee. Admittedly the 1^st respondent in pursuance to the impugned