1. Since the similar issues are involved in these matters, with the consent of parties, matters are finally heard analogously and decided by this common order. The only difference in W.P. No. 8092/2012 is that the petitioner of this case is an Office Bearer of a recognized association and he is claiming immunity from transfer being an Office Bearer. The other things are similar in nature.

2. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the transfer order dated 17.10.2012 is bad in law and liable to be set aside for following reasons:-

(i) As per circular dated 22.9.2012 (Annexure P-19), the powers are delegated for the purpose of transfer of different category of employees. He submits that as per Part-A section (v), the General Manager (Establishment) has no authority jurisdiction and competence to issue the transfer order. He further submits that transfer order can be issued only by CE-CGM (Regional Office) after obtaining approval from the MD.

(ii) The order is malafide and is punitive in nature.

(iii) In W.P. No. 8092/2012, the petitioner could not have been transferred being an Office Bearer.

To elaborate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per schedule of powers, the note-sheet could have been initiated by CE-CGM (Regional Office) alone and after obtaining approval from MD, orders could have been passed by the same authority i.e. CE-CGM (Regional Office). By drawing the attention of this Court, Shri Sharma submits that Annexure R-5 contains signature/approval of MD but the recommendation/note-sheet is not initiated by CGM (Regional Level), whereas it is done by CGM (HR&A), an authority who is sitting in the Head Quarter. The transfer order is criticized on the ground that it is neither initiated by the competent authority nor issued by the same authority. Merely because the MD has given approval, the transfer order cannot be permitted to stand unless it fulfills all the requirements of the said circular. By placing reliance on a communication dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure-X) filed with an affidavit, Shri Sharma submits that the contents of this letter shows that CGM (Gwalior Region) was annoyed with the petitioner and he as a punitive measure, recommended the transfer of the petitioner outside Gwalior and this recommendation is acted upon by the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned order has a punitive element and it is malafide in nature, Shri Sharma submits.

3. Lastly for the petitioner is W.P. No. 8092/2012, Shri Sharma submits that as per the transfer policy dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure R-3), the petitioner being a Circle Secretary has an immunity for additional three years in addition to the normal tenure of posting.

4. Per Contra, Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, controverted the stand of the petitioner and supported the order.

5. Learned counsel for the employer produced certain note sheets and it is stated that the decision to transfer the petitioner was taken by the competent authority i.e. Manging Director and merely because the transfer order contains the signature of GM, it will not vitiate the transfer order. In other words, Shri Jain submits that the note-sheets were initiated and placed before the competent authority (MD) who approved the transfer of the petitioner and in obedience of the apporval, the transfer order Annexure P-1 is passed. No fault can be found in the said transfer order. By placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 348 [A. Sudhakar Vs. Postmaster General, Hyderabad and another]. Shri Jain submits that even in quasi-judicial proceeding, If the higher authority passes an order, it will not be vitiated unless a right of appeal of the employee is taken away by the said decision. He submits that in the present matter, there is no right of appeal etc. And if something can be done in a quasi judicial proceedings it can always be done in administrative matters. In nutshell, transfer is approved by the competent