Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.—

1. This writ petition is directed against the order of transfer dated 29.07.2013 passed by Commandant B-Group PAC 4th Battalion Allahabad.

2. It appears that PAC Headquarter passed an order on 25.07.2013 transferring petitioner from 4th Battalion PAC to 44th Battalion PAC, Meerut and by means of impugned order the Commandant 4th Battalion PAC has communicated the said order to petitioner directing him that he shall stand relieved on 31.07.2013 so as to join at transferred place.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that there is a departmental inquiry initiated against petitioner and the matter is pending before U.P. Public Service Tribunal and since the matter is sub-judice, therefore, he cannot be transferred. He further submitted that departmental proceedings have continued for a quite long time, therefore, on the ground of mere delay the same has to be dropped in view of the judgment of this Court in Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs. Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow and others, 1999(2) UPLBEC 1407. He lastly contended that petitioner is a handicapped and, therefore, on equity ground also he should not be transferred.

4. However, I find no force in any of the above submissions. It is not in dispute that petitioner was posted at Allahabad sometimes in June, 1983, i.e., from the date of his initial appointment, and since then he has been continuing thereat and, therefore, for last 30 years he has been posted there.

5. So far as pendency of departmental proceedings before Tribunal is concerned, that cannot bar the authorities concerned from transferring petitioner and in particular in exigency of service on administrative ground when the authorities find that during pendency of departmental proceedings the petitioner must be transferred. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer is against statutory rules or has been passed by an authority not competent to do so or is vitiated on account of mala fide. The service of the petitioner are transferable. The transfer being exigency of service, an employee is liable to be transferred from one place to another and normally no case for interference in Court of law is called for unless the case is within categories, as mentioned above.

6. Recently in The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. R. Perachi and Ors., AIR 2012 SC 232, the Court has observed:

"...transfer is an incident of service, and one cannot make a grievance if a transfer is made on the administrative grounds, and without attaching any stigma....".

7. The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and said :

"in a matter of transfer of a govt. employee, the scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer."

8. A transfer is made in administrative exigency, if there is a complaint pending and instead of a regular department enquiry, the authority concerned decided to transfer a person concerned. It would then be a transfer purely on administrative ground and not by way of punishment etc. This approach has been approved by Apex Court in The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Madras (supra), and in para 27 of the judgment the Court observed:

"...the transfer was purely on the administrative ground in view of the pending complaint and departmental enquiry against first Respondent. When a complaint against the integrity of an employee is being investigated, very often he is transferred outside the concerned unit. That is desirable from the point of view of the administration as well as that of the employee."

9. In Tushar D.Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., JT 2009 (2) SC 474, reiterating well established principle in long chain of authority the Court said:

"The legal position

Click Here to Read the rest of this document