ORDER

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant, who is working as Assistant Accounts Officer under CDA (IDS) i.e., respondent No.3 herein, challenging the order dated

09.04.2024, whereby he has been transferred from New Delhi to PCDA (Navy) Mumbai and also relieved vide order dated 19.04.2024. He has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):

“a. call for the records of the case b. quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09/04/2024 (placed at Annexure A/1), relieving order dated 19/04/2024 (Annexure A/2) and c. Direct the respondents to adhere to their transfer policy and allow the applicant to continue the applicant's posting at the present station.

d. Direct the respondents to consider and post the applicant at Delhi or any other station nearer to Delhi e. Accord all consequential benefits.

f. Award costs of the proceedings; and g. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant.”

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after serving for 7 years in Mumbai, which is termed as Deficient Station Posting, the applicant was transferred to CGDA Delhi on 22.04.2022 and only after 3 months, he was again transferred from CGDA Delhi to CDA (IDS) Delhi in July, 2022. Thereafter, while he was working at CDA (IDS) Delhi, the applicant has now again transferred to Mumbai vide the impugned order dated 09.04.2024, which is in violation of Transfer Policy dated 28.03.2024. He also pointed out that as per Clause 2.3 of the said Policy, the normal tenure at a particular station shall be three years. Further, as per para 11 of the Policy, the periodicity of transfers shall be effected in a manner so as to coincide with the end/beginning of academic year, except transfer on request.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant’s wife is a home-maker and he has two minor sons of age 10 and 8 years. His frequent transfer has not only affected his life but also hampered the studies of his children due to change of schools in very short span and had to bear unnecessary expenses and/lot of difficulties in admission process. It is also pointed out that his dependent family requires his personal presence and support at all times and getting admission of his son again at Mumbai will be extremely hard task. He also reiterated that the transfer of the applicant is a punitive exercise done by the respondents just to punish him.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission made by the applicant’s counsel, and submitted that the periodical unauthorized absence, poor performance and careless behaviour of the applicant had adversely affected the functioning of the office. Even his present office has surrendered him without substitute. Accordingly, his case was referred to Defence Accounts Placement Board (DAPB) and on the recommendation of the DAPB and after the approval of the Competent Authority, his transfer has been executed by the respondents, not to punish him but only due to administrative exigencies. He further submitted that due process has been adopted by the respondents while transferring the applicant and, hence, there is no mala fide on their part. To strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel referred to various guidelines of the CGDA Transfer Policy dated 28.03.2014 and clarified that Clause 2.3 itself provides that an officer can be considered for transfer in administrative exigency. Further, as per para 1.1, transfer ordered on administrative/disciplinary or compassionate grounds and that of new recruits will be outside the purview of the Transfer Policy and paras (3) and (4) are general guidelines regarding transfer/posting of Special Category Stations/Deficient Stations.

5. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents