Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers are valid unless proven to be made in mala fides or in violation of statutory provisions.

JUDGMEMT

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sundeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 the petitioner has been transferred from Prayagraj branch to Bisani Pratapgarh.

3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned transfer order on the footing that it is actuated by mala fide and is penal in nature. Further as per the petitioner the transfer has been made on the basis of complaints which in itself is contrary to law.

4. The grounds on which the transfer order has been assailed shall be examined in the succeeding paragraphs.

5. A bare perusal of the transfer order and the attending circumstances discloses that a transfer order is not punitive in any manner. The petitioner has not been demoted to a lower post nor her salary has been lowered. The seniority of the petitioner does not get affected in any adverse manner.

6. The petitioner was posted at Prayagraj for a very long period of time between 2007-2025, except for a brief interlude from 19.11.2022 to 10.06.2024 when she was posted at Raipur. It is noteworthy that the husband of the petitioner is in the Railways and was posted at Raipur. Moreover district Pratapgarh is a neighbouring city of Prayagraj and the two cities are well connected.

7. Transfers can be challenged only on limited grounds namely, infraction of statutory provision or mala fides. No violation of statutory provision has been pleaded or established before this Court.

8. Allegations of mala fides can be enquired into only if they are specifically pleaded with material particulars. Moreover, the individual against whom such allegations are made has to be arrayed as co-respondent. In the instant case both the essential ingredients to prove mala fides are absent in the writ petition.

9. In fact the pleadings related to mala fides are bald, vague and self serving. Mere differences of opinion or compatibility issues may not be sufficient to attribute mala fides to the action of the superior authority in the facts and circumstances of a case. Mala fides are not established from the pleadings. The official against whom mala fides are alleged is arrayed as a party. The ground that the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides is accordingly rejected.

10. The petitioner also claims reliance on certain provisions of the transfer policy. The transfer policy does not confer any enforceable rights upon the petitioner. Further the power of an employer to transfer an employee is not derived from the transfer policy. Absence of provisions to transfer on administrative grounds in the transfer policy does not denude the authority of the employer to make transfers on said grounds.

11. Transfer is an incident of service. No employee has a vested right to be transferred to any place of their choice. Transfer policy has to sub-serve the larger interests of the institution.

12. The question of the validity of the transfer in view of the the pending complaints against the petitioner will now be examined.

13. The petitioner has stated in her writ petition that she was transferred on complaints. A fact finding enquiry was made in regard to the said complaints. The transfer order could not have been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

14. The counter affidavit clearly establishes the nexus between the aforesaid complaints against the petitioner and the transfer order. The counter affidavit records frequent and unauthorised absence of the petitioner from duty. The petitioner also took leave without prior sanction and was in the habit of taking frequent leaves b