Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6410
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suchitto Kumar Das, J
Mohammed Waseem – Appellant
Versus
The Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands – Respondent
O.A./351/01153/2024 | OA No. 351/795/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Bharat Bhushan
For the Respondents: Dr. D. Chowdhury
Transfer orders in public service are administrative actions and not subject to judicial interference unless shown to be punitive or in violation of statutory provisions.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 and 26 - Transfer of Panchayat Secretary - Dispute regarding transfer from Shoal Bay to Kishori Nagar - Court examined whether transfer was punitive or in public interest - Transfer policy mandates a tenure of three years, applicant transferred after two years - Court found no malafide in transfer, upheld administrative decision. (Paras 1, 3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.9)
(B) Transfer Orders - Normal administrative practice - Courts generally do not interfere with transfer orders unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions. (Paras 6.2, 6.5, 6.7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was transferred from Shoal Bay to Kishori Nagar amid allegations of unsatisfactory performance and lack of coordination with local Panchayat members, without disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
Findings of Court:
The transfer was not punitive but necessary for administrative efficiency, and the applicant's tenure policy was subject to exceptions in special circumstances.
Issues: The court addressed whether the transfer was made in public interest, punitive in nature, and if proper procedures were followed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that transfers are inherent to government service, and the absence of malice or statutory violation justified the transfer.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer of the applicant and procedural context (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of transfer (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal reasoning on transfer and administrative discretion (Para 6) |
| 4. conclusion of the case (Para 7) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
The OA was heard by the Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member and Hon’ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member on 13.12.2024 and was reserved for final order on the same date.
Hon’ble Member (A) drafted the final order in the matter and put it up for the approval of Hon’ble Member (J). Hon’ble Member (J) differed with the order of Hon’ble Member (A) and recorded her views in a note dated 11.02.2025. The matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal with the following note containing the points of disagreement :-
“REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985
We, the members of the Kolkata Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal have differed in the order to be passed in OA No. 351/1153/2024 (Mohammed Waseem vs. Andaman & Nicobar Administration and others). We have differed on the following questions, which are referred to the Hon’ble Chairman on Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 :-
1. Whether the transfer of the applicant as Panchayat Secretary from Shoal Bay to Kishori Nagar was made on wider administrative/ public interest?
2. Whether the transfer of the applicant from Shoal Bay to Kishori Nagar was punitive in nature?
3. Whether it was proper on the part of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to transfer the applicant as Panchayat Secretary from Shoal Bay to Kishori Nagar on administrative interest on the allegations made against him regarding his irregularities and absence from duty every week on Friday and for short period during other week days instead of issuing show cause notice or initiating any disciplinary proceeding against him for his irregularities in attending his duties as per rules ?
4. If for argument sake, it is accepted that the respondents had transferred the applicant in wider public interest, whether it was fair on the part of the respondents to transfer the applicant before completion of his tenure of 3 years at one place by violating the existing Transfer Policy at the time when his wife was in a family way?”
Hon’ble Chairman, CAT vide order dated 03.04.2025, appointed me as the Third-Member in the matter. Accordingly, the matter was heard on 07.05.2025 and 15.05.2025.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
“(a) To quash and/or set aside the impugned Order NO. 966 dated 01.08.2024 and its reliving order no. 225 dated 12.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.4 and 6 as the same is violation of natural justice.
(b) Direction upon the respondents to allow the applicant to remain in South Andaman (Zone-A) until the completion of stipulated tenure as per transfer policy, 2007.
(c) Any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit & proper.”
3. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-
With the approval of the Director (RD/Panch), a draft transfer order, th vide Office Order No. 691 dated 6 June, 2024, was issued whereby claims and objections were invited latest by 12/6/2024 against the proposal to transfer the applicant, Shri Mohammad Wasim , Panchayat Secretary from Shoal Bay to Paschim Sagar. The applicant submitted a representation against the said order. However, the said representation was not considered by the respondents and vide Office Order No. 746 dated 13th June 2024, the applicant was transferred to Kishori Nagar with additional charge of Paschim Sagar. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, the applicant filed an original application being No. 351/795/2024 before this tribunal which was disposed by this tri
