Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9793
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajnish Kumar Rai, J
Chhote Narayan Dwivedi – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 542 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Shri Rohit Singh
For the Respondents: Shri Raghuvendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Karishma Singh
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases of malafide or clear statutory violations, prioritizing administrative discretion and operational exigencies.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer of a public servant - The applicant challenged a premature transfer order, claiming lack of adherence to tenure norms and compassionate grounds - The Tribunal found that the transfer adhered to policy guidelines despite arguments regarding personal circumstances and procedural impropriety - Key judicial precedents were cited regarding the limited grounds for challenging transfer orders, emphasizing compliance with statutory norms and operational exigencies. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 11, 14).
(B) Interference Standards - The court underscored that transfers should only be interfered with on established malafide or statutory violations, adhering to the principle of separation of powers—transfer decisions are to be left to the employer, barring clear violations. (Paras 9, 14).
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a civilian officer in the Ministry of Defence, contested a premature transfer from Prayagraj to Ferozepur, citing procedural irregularities and personal circumstances.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the transfer to be lawful, adhering to relevant guidelines, and dismissed the application without costs.
Issues: The key issues revolved around procedural compliance in the transfer order, consideration of compassionate circumstances, and the relevance of tenure norms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the transfer complied with established guidelines and operational needs, finding no merit in arguments against it.
Result: The Original Application stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. premature transfer order contested due to procedural irregularities. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents justified transfer under operational exigencies. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial limitations on reviewing transfer orders established. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. impugned orders comply with established norms, thus dismissed. (Para 12 , 13) |
Order
Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Karishma Singh holding brief of Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
“A. To quash the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 in respect of applicant only and rejection order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2. And movement order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No.4.
B. To direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the applicant at his present place of posting CE (AF) Prayagraj Bamrauli.
C. Issue any other and further writ, order or directions; which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. Award the cost of the O.A. to the Applicant.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Shri Chhotenarayan Dwivedi, is a civilian officer in the Ministry of Defence, presently posted at CE(AF), Prayagraj, since November 2023. He had earlier served a hard tenure posting at Andaman & Nicobar Islands for over two years and was repatriated in accordance with the transfer policy dated 09.10.2015, which entitles a tenure-completed officer to choice posting near hometown. However, a premature transfer order dated 26.03.2025 was issued, followed by a rejection of representation dated 23.04.2025 and movement order dated 23.06.2025 — all of which were passed without considering the tenure norms, compassionate grounds, and procedural safeguards. The applicant’s aged parents suffer from serious cardiac and geriatric illnesses requiring continuous care, and his daughter is enrolled at a local school, relying on stable posting. Despite detailed representations, the rejection order was quashed by the Hon’ble Tribunal on 28.05.2025 with a direction for reconsideration through a speaking order, which was later passed in an arbitrary and misleading manner, ignoring binding policy and judicial precedent.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the transfer order dated 26.03.2025, along with the rejection and movement orders dated 23.06.2025, suffers from serious procedural infirmity and is liable to be quashed. Counsel pointed out that the applicant has served only 1 year and 5 months out of the prescribed 4-year tenure, and the impugned orders have been passed without considering the compassionate circumstances, tenure protection, and applicable policy mandates laid down under Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2015. Counsel submitted that although the Hon’ble Tribunal had earlier quashed the rejection order dated 23.04.2025 and directed the respondents to pass a speaking order in terms of the applicant's representation and the facts forming part of OA No. 368/2025, the speaking order subsequently issued fails to address the relevant policy provisions and appears arbitrary and devoid of any application of mind. It is further submitted that the applicant’s posting profile is aligned with Air Force establishments, whereas the proposed posting at Ferozepur — an Army station — does not match his professional specialization. Further, the impugned transfer order bypasses more than 20 senior officers under the All India Seniority List and disregards the statutory obligations under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Judicial precedents including Radhamani vs. State of Kerala , Sunny Paul vs. NCT of Delhi , Param Singh vs. State of U.P. , and Dharmendra Kumar Saxena vs. State of U.P. were cited in support of the applicant’s claim. Lea
