Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers must align with administrative needs without statutory violations.

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section

19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Quash the letter No.KLB/B1/RT/2024- 25/Dlgs/2024/1 dated 11.07.2024 at Annexure A4 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kalaburagi Division, Kalaburagi, Respondent No.4.

ii. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he was appointed as Postal Assistant from 01.05.1999 under physically handicapped quota and at present working as LSG SPM Chincholi SO. The applicant is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 11.07.2024 transferring the applicant from Chincholi SO to Jewargi SO and rejection of his representation requesting to retain him at Chincholi SO. Hence this OA.

S SARALADEVI

3. Learned Counsel Shri P.Kamalesan representing the applicant submits that the applicant is a disabled person. In terms of Para-5 of the Transfer Guidelines (Annexure A1), the station tenure was six years and post tenure was three years. The applicant has not completed either six years station tenure at Chincholi SO or three years in post, since he joined as LSG on 16.06.2022 at Chincholi. Therefore, the transfer is in violation of transfer guidelines. The applicant submitted representation on 26.08.2024, requesting the authority to permit him to continue at Chincholi, inter alia urging the grounds of the transfer in the midst of academic year and his children’s admission in school thereby seeking retention in Chincholi SO for one year, but the same has not been properly appreciated. The impugned transfer order dated 11.07.2024 is referred as rotational transfer of LSG Postal Assistant’s in the interest of service and under vigilance grounds. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2009 SC 1399 , learned Counsel submitted that no order of transfer is permissible in lieu of punishment. Accordingly, seeks for interference of this Tribunal.

S SARALADEVI

4. Learned Counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents submitted that the applicant has sought for his retention by one year at Chincholi SO vide his representation dated 26.08.2024. By virtue of interim order passed by this Tribunal, by now one year time has lapsed. Similarly station tenure of six years and post tenure of three years are also completed by now. Referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents, learned Counsel argued that the applicant’s negligence led to significant financial misappropriation amounting to Rs.11,16,436/-. Having regard to the overall lapses on the part of the applicant, the inquiry team comprising of ASP Kalaburagi Sub Division-I and Inspector Posts (Complaints) Kalaburagi DO has strongly recommended the applicant’s transfer to another office on vigilance grounds to mitigate further risk to the department. Consequently, the Transfer and Placement Committee has considered this issue during rotational transfer for 2024-25 and recommended the transfer of the applicant to a vacant LSG PA post at Jewargi SO. This decision was made to ensure that the applicant does not continue in a supervisory role, as S SARALADEVI continuing him in a supervisory role was deemed inappropriate from the vigilance perspective. Accordingly the applicant was transferred as per the impugned order in the interest of administration.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. Pursuant to t