A transfer order cannot serve as a punitive measure for misconduct already penalized, as it violates principles of fair administrative action.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J):-

1. The applicant, who is working as Hd. TT/NDLS, is aggrieved by a transfer order dated 19.03.2021 by which he has been transferred from Delhi Division to Ambala Division. Assailing the said order, the applicant had approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 829/2021 which was disposed of on 13.04.2021 directing the applicant to prefer a supplementary representation and the respondents were directed to decide the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance of the said order, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 08.10.2021 rejecting the representation of the applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-

“8.1 That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow the present Original Application set- aside the impugned transfer order dated 08.10.2021 with all consequential benefits.

8.2 That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to issue the appropriate directions to continue him in Delhi Division at the present place of posting till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings in terms of their Railway Board instruction dated 23.5.1967 and judgment of this Hon’ble Tribunal in Jasbir Singh versus Union of India & other case in the interest of justice.

8.3 That this Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 8.10.2021 in the light of order dated 24.9.2021 whereby on similar and identical circumstances the respondent has withdrawn the identical transfer order.

8.4 That any other or further relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may be deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicants.”

2. Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 14804/2021 wherein the High Court had granted him interim protection.

The said order reads as under:-

“4. To be noted, even according to the counsel for the petitioner, a charge sheet dated 18.02.2021 has been served on the petitioner.

4.1. The respondents intend to effect inter-divisional transfer, vis-(cid:224)-vis the petitioner. Pertinently, if this intention is given effect to, the petitioner would be required to move from Delhi to Ambala Division; this aspect, inter alia, is referred to in order dated 08.10.2021, passed by the respondents [post a direction issued by the Tribunal, vide order dated 13.04.2021, in OA No. 830/2021].

4.2. According to the petitioner, inter-divisional transfer cannot take place while the charge is being enquired into, by the respondents. This is a legal aspect which the Tribunal will surely consider, while dealing with the O.A. and the interlocutory application, filed by the petitioner.

5. The writ petition is disposed of, with a request to the Tribunal to take up the main matter or at least the interlocutory application on 07.01.2022.

6. In the interregnum, respondents will not take any precipitate steps against the petitioner.”

3. On the strength of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble High Court the applicant has continued to serve as Senior TE at the Delhi Division.

4. In support of the cause of the applicant, Mr. Reen, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 19.03.2021 (Page 40, Annexure A4) has purportedly been issued on administrative grounds as per the recommendations of the General Manager, Vigilance Department of the Railways. He explains that once the said order has been issued in pursuance of the directions of the General Manager Vigilance, the same cannot be termed to be on administrative ground. He draws attention to the order dated 08.10.2021 wherein it confirms that the Vigilance Department had, in fact, conducted a surprise preventive checkup on 17.11.2020 and in this vigilance check and the applicant had not cooperated with them. As a result, the applicant was transfe