2025:BHC-AS:49179-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13807 OF 2025 Mr. Ganesan Mani .. Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13808 OF 2025 Mr. Sudhakar Jaysing Vaydande .. Petitioner Versus The Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents ...

Mr. R. L. Kulkarni a/w Mr. A. R. Kulkarni a/w Mr. A. P. Mandlik, Advocates for the petitioner in both the WPs.

Mr. Neel G. Helekar, Advocate for Respondents in both WPs.

...

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 11^th NOVEMBER 2025.

P.C. :

Aggrieved by the common order dated 12^th September 2025 in Original Application Nos.6 of 2025 and 57 of 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (in short, Tribunal), these writ petitions have been filed by Mr. Ganesan Mani (in Writ Petition No.13807 of 2025) and Mr. Sudhakar Jaysing Vaydande (in Writ Petition No.13808 of 2025).

2. The petitioner-Ganesan Mani joined the establishment of Directorate of Construction Services and Estate Management as security guard on 16^th November 2017 and petitioner-Sudhakar Jaysing Vaydande joined the Shri Project, BARC as security guard on 14^th January 1991. They are aggrieved by their mid-term transfer vide Office Order dated 26^th December 2024 which according to them was issued without following the Office Memorandum dated 21^st March 2024. The stand of the respondents before the Tribunal was that clause 5.7 of the transfer policy does not speak about minimum period of service and transfer order can be passed in the administrative exigencies and functional requirements.

3. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2706 of 2019 titled “Shri Dattatray Krishnaji Pawar v. Union of India & Ors.” and Writ Petition No.8898 of 2010 titled “Shri Rajendra Shankar Kalal v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.” and earlier decisions of the Tribunal in Original Application No.285 of 2020 titled “Shri Sudhakar L. Auchite v. Union of India & Ors.” and Original Application No.314 of 2023 titled “K. V. Madhusudanrao v.

Union of India & Anr.” and held as under: -

“22. So far as arguments relating to bias are concerned, I do not find any substance in it. In the case of Shri Dattatray Krishnaji Pawar (supra), concept of bias has been explained by the Bombay High Court.

In para 17 and 18, Bombay High Court has held thus: -

“17. By way of reiteration, we observe that an order of transfer would amount to a punishment if by reason thereof the officer/employee has been asked to discharge duty of a post lower than that he had been holding or if his pay has been downgraded or his promotional prospects are jeopardized or if the order is stigmatic, in the sense that he would have to carry an indelible stain for the rest of his service career without there being any finding of guilt recorded against him. None of these incidents is present in the case of the petitioner's transfer. We, therefore, cannot hold his transfer as punitive.

18. It is also not a case where the petitioner despite not having suffered any civil consequence by reason of the order of transfer being allegedly punitive in nature, or despite the transfer order being innocuously worded but founded on reported indiscipline, we can and must, by lifting the veil, ascertain whether any mala fide motive has triggered the same and/or the petitioner has been dealt with in any manner violative of his rights in the matter of public employment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s service was transferable. Over and above that, the petitioner being governed by FR 15, he could be transferred on account of misbehaviour, the same can be made to a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which the officer/employee holds a lien. The petitioner not having been transferred to hold a post carrying lesser pay, we see no reason to hold that in the given facts the petitioner suffered the order of transfer as and by way of punishme