ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 29.1.2013 in O.A. No.590 of 2012 by which the Tribunal while allowing the Original Application quashed the order dated 1.8.2012 transferring the opposite party from KVS Regional Office, Bhubaneswar to K.V. Sambalpur and directing issuance of necessary order to that extent forthwith.

2.From the facts of the case, it is revealed that the opposite party while working as an Assistant at KVS Regional Office, Bhubaneswar was served with an order of transfer dated 1.8.2012 to the following effect :

No.F. 15046/1/2012-KVS (BBS)/12748Dated 01.8.2012

TRANSFER ORDER

Under para 7(e) of the transfer guidelines of KVS, Sh. V.S.N. Murty, Assistant is hereby transferred in public interest from KVS Regional Office, Bhubaneswar to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sambalpur with immediate effect and stands relieved on 01.08.2012 (AN).

Sh. V.S.N. Murty, Assistant is entitled to TA/DA as per rules.

Sd/-R. KALAVATHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

3.On receiving the said order of transfer, the opposite party preferred the aforesaid Original Application challenging the said order mainly on the ground that the said order of transfer is punitive in nature along with other grounds, such as, the other employees, who are continuing in the Regional Office for much longer period than the opposite party, have not been transferred and the opposite party has been transferred by applying the provisions of Clause 7 (e) of the Transfer Guidelines for Teachers (up to PGTs) and others up to Assistant. In the Original Application, the opposite party while seeking quashing of the order of transfer also prayed for quashing the Clause 7(e) of the Transfer Policy Guidelines on the ground that the same is contrary to the settled law that punitive transfer is bad in law.

4.The Tribunal in the impugned order considering the rival submissions made by the parties came to the conclusion that the sole point to be decided in the case is whether the transfer has been resorted to as a measure of punishment. Referring to Clause 7(e), the Tribunal held that the said Rule unequivocally makes it clear that transfer of an employee could be effected, if his/her stay becomes prejudicial to the interest of the organization, where he was posted. The Tribunal interpreted the said clause by holding that the said clause gives a delicate hint that without reasons to be recorded in writing that the stay of the so called employee is prejudicial to the organizational interest, transfer can never be resorted to. The Tribunal referred to the Note Sheet from which it is found that the order of transfer could be issued on the ground that despite certain office orders, the applicant has not reported for duty in the Administrative Section. It also recorded that there are no such charge memo issued to the applicant in this regard to explain his conduct, let alone, holding the applicant guilty of misconduct. Even there has been no reason recorded in writing as to what prompted the authorities to resort to Clause 7 (e) of the Transfer Guidelines. It also observed that language of the Clause 7(e) has a bar and its consequence inasmuch as a sitgma directly and unhesitatingly cast on the conduct of an employee at the whims and fancies of the authorities in the event any such inquiry in that behalf is not conducted and the delinquency established. Basing on the above findings and observations, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order of transfer is punitive in nature and is unsustainable.

5.Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the averments made in the counter filed before it by the writ petitioners wherein it has been clearly mentioned that as to what was the reason for taking recourse to Clause-7(e) of the Transfer Guidelines for transferring the opposite party to Sambalpur.

6.In the counter filed before the Tribun