Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3668
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HON’BLE MR. UMESH GAJANKUSH, J
Suraj Domaji Patbhaje – Appellant
Versus
Geological Survey Of India – Respondent
O.A./341/2024
Shri Vishal Anand, Shri Bhaskar D. Pandit for official respondents and Shri Atul Mahajan for respondent No.4
Transfer orders are valid if made in public interest and backed by appropriate authority, with limited scope for judicial review unless mala fides are proven.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer Order - The applicant challenged the transfer order dated 27th March, 2024, asserting it violated the transfer policy guidelines issued by the Geological Survey of India. The applicant's transfer was justified by the respondents as being in public interest, citing the need for his expertise in Hyderabad. (Paras 2.1, 3.1, 12, 14)
(B) Transfer Policy - The court emphasized that transfer is an incident of service and can be made in administrative exigency, with limited scope for judicial review unless mala fides are established. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a senior officer, was transferred from Nagpur to Hyderabad, which he contested as arbitrary and against the transfer policy guidelines. He had previously been transferred to Nagpur less than eight months prior. (Paras 2.1, 3.1)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the transfer order justified based on public interest and the applicant's qualifications, dismissing the application. (Paras 16)
Issues: The main issues included whether the transfer violated the transfer policy and if it was arbitrary. (Paras 5, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer was valid as it served public interest and was backed by a collegium's recommendation, emphasizing the limited scope for judicial review in transfer matters. (Paras 10, 12)
Result: The Original Application is dismissed.
ORDER
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following reliefs :
“8.A. Quash and set aside the Transfer Order dated 27th March, 2024, issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure A-1).
8.B. Stay the effect and operation of the Transfer Order dated 27th March, 2024, issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure A-1).
8.C. Direct the Respondents to maintain the Status quo. 8.D. Grant any other relief deems fit under the facts and the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
8.E. Quash and set aside the Order dated 24th April, 2024, passed by the Respondent No.2, in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed to the post of Sr. Technical Assistant and joined the service on 21.06.1993, thereafter, he was designated as Sr. Geologist on 16.09.1999. However, he has joined as a Director on 04.05.2011 and thereafter, joined as Dy. Director General on 15.11.2016 in DDG, RMH-I, GIS, WRO, Jaipur. Thereafter, he has joined the post of Additional Director on 21.07.2023 as ADG & HoD, CR, GSI, Nagpur and will retire from service on 30.06.2025.
2.1. It is stated that since the year 1999 due to his hard and sincere work in the Department he has given promotions and, therefore, there is no complaints against the applicant. It is stated that by impugned transfer order dated 27.03.2024, applicant has been transferred from GSI, Nagpur to GSI, Hyderabad and the Respondent No.4 has been transferred at the place of the applicant, in spite of the fact that Respondent No.4 is presently posted at DDG (G), NMH-II, Nagpur and he has been transferred as ADG (G) & HoD, CR, GSI, Nagpur with additional charge. It is stated that the Circular dated 25.07.2016 issued by the Government of India, Geological Survey of India on transfer and placement policy. Rule No.4.4, provides that the tenure of an officer shall be minimum for a period of 4 years, to a maximum of 5 years at a single location.
2.2. It is stated that against the impugned transfer order dated 27.03.2024, representation was made to Respondent No.2 for reconsideration, in view of the Circular/Guidelines of Transfer dated 25.07.2016. However, during the pendency of the present O.A., the said representation was decided by order dated 24.04.2024, by rejecting the representation of the applicant. Therefore, the said order was also challenged by way of amendment.
3. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the O.A. It is stated that the transfer of the applicant was made in the public interest as per the policy. It is stated that Para 7.3 of the Policy read with Para 8.1 categorically provides that the applicant is liable to serve anywhere in India in public interest and para 11.1 starts with from a non-obstante Clause which provides that “notwithstanding anything contained in the policy, the Government may transfer or post any officer to any station or post in public interest depending on the domain/terrain specialization and other functional requirement”. It is stated that the applicant is a HAG level officer and has spent 18 years and 8 months in his service tenure since 1990 at Nagpur.
3.1. It is further submitted that earlier he is succeeded in getting himself transferred to Nagpur on own request basis from Chennai. Out of total career of the applicant from 1990 till the date of the transfer i.e. 34 years, the applicant has spent almost more than 18 years at Nagpur. In respect of public interest, it is stated that in the speaking order, the transfer of the applicant at Hyderabad was justified, as incumbent Shri Venkateswara Rao, Additional Director General and HoD, SR, Hyderabad superannuated on 31.03.2024, on account of which the post fell vacant. It is submitted that applicant Shri Patbhaje is well versed with Mission-1 and Mission- 3 activities and administrative works pertaining to similar activities at Southern Region, Hyderaba
