ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, Member (Admn.) In the present O.A. the applicant has challenged the transfer order dated 04.10.2019 by which the applicant has been transferred from his present posting at Mau (U.P) to Shahjahanpur (UP).

2. Per applicant, brief facts are that he was initially appointed in September 2009 as Junior Telecom officer in the Punjab Telecom Circle of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL for short).

That in 2017 he was transferred to the office of TDM Mau and then needlessly disturbed by posting at different locations within Mau district and now transferred to Shahjahanpur within two years of being posted at Mau while the minimum period prescribed for transfer period is four years in the transfer guidelines dated 07/05/2008 corrected up to 24/11/2014. That the transfer is due to personal animosity held by certain colleague employees and he has been punished in a malaifide manner unilaterally. That on 06.09.2019, the applicant received a message regarding un – barring a telephone number belonging to some Honourable judge in compliance of which he made several calls to his subordinate officer, CRM Mr Piyush Rai but in spite of several calls he could not connect to him and so had to perforce go to the office of CRM Mr Piyush Rai personally and request regarding the un-barring of the concerned telephone whereupon Shri Rai exhibited unruly behaviour. That he has been a victim of such kind of unruly behaviour earlier (in one such incident he was transferred to a different station in Mau within a few months of joining office in 2017) and in spite of being at the receiving end no action has been taken against the culprits in spite of representations thereof. That applicant has also had to file a police complaint on such unruly behaviour against some office personnel. That contrary to any sense of equitable justice he has now been transferred and that too against the guidelines. Since his pleas against the transfer injustice have gone unheeded, hence the O.A.

3. Per contra, the respondents have denied all the allegations and submitted that the transfer is well within the guidelines.

That the transfer has been done on administrative grounds which has been as such mentioned in the impugned transfer order. That as per paras 2-5 of the transfer policy guidelines averred to by the applicant himself, the guidelines are just that and not mandatory and the same has been mentioned as much in the said guidelines. That as per administrative needs the applicant has been transferred and the same cannot be interfered with in a judicial review as per a catena of judgements of the Hon Apex Court which the Tribunal is well aware of. That accordingly there is no merit in the O.A. and so it is liable to be dismissed.

4. We have heard the ld counsels of both the parties at length and perused the pleadings filed carefully.

5. The key issue which falls for consideration concerns the challenge to the impugned transfer order on grounds of personal animosity against certain colleagues including malafide as a motive for the transfer and violation of respondents’ own transfer policy.

6. In order to decide the issues, it is to be noted firstly that grounds of malafide cannot be held forth as none of the persons against whom malafide raison d’etre is alleged have been arrayed as respondent-parties and so as per laid down law by the Hon Apex Court in a catena of judgements, the malafide cannot be taken up for adjudication. Following judgements of the Hon Apex Court refer:

(i) In Ram Saran vs State of Punjab, 1967 SLR 771 Hon Apex Court held that where serious allegations are made against responsible officers of the State, it may not be desirable to rely merely on affidavits but to take evidence. In KN Bahl vs State of Punjab 1979 (1) SLR 288 it is held by Hon Apex Court that it is for the person seeking to invalidate an order to e