Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers cannot be challenged on mere inconvenience unless grounded in established legal violations.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (J)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“To call for the records of 1^st and 2^nd respondents relating to the Order of the 2^nd respondent (issued with the approval of the 1^st respondent) in DGHRD/ADC-JC/110/2025, Office order No.48/2025, dated 08.05.2025 and set aside the same in so far as the order of transfer and posting of the applicant and the respondents 3 to 6 herein and to allow the applicant to be retained at Chennai and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice”.

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are:

The Applicant is a senior officer of the Indian Revenue Service recruited in the year 2009 and is currently serving as Additional Commissioner, and has an unblemished and meritorious service record with successive promotion in 2014, 2019 & 2022. He was transferred from Mumbai to Chennai in July 2021 and posted to Trichy GST Commissionerate, where he served until October 2022, before being posted to Chennai North Commissionerate. Following a motivated and false complaint, he was shifted to Chennai Appeals-1 in July 2024 and subsequently to CGST Appeals-II in October 2024. Despite serving only six months at CGST Appeals -II, he was again transferred to Chennai outer Commissionerate, vide Office Order No.41/2025, dated 01.05.2025. However, the said transfer was stalled pending the relieving of respondents 3 to 5, who were transferred outside Chennai. Shockingly, within a week, a revised order (No.48/2025, dated 08.05.2025) was issued, cancelling the transfer of respondents 3 to 5 and retaining them in Chennai, allegedly under influence. To accommodate them, the applicant and another minority community officer were unfairly displaced with, the applicant being posted back to Trichy where he had already served earlier. The Applicant has served in Chennai for only about 2 ½ years and his abrupt transfer to Trichy despite others managing to evade their outstation posting constitutes discrimination and victimization. Additionally, the applicant has not yet been relieved nor has a proper charge transfer occurred. Compounding the hardship, the applicant’s mother is critically ill, having undergone a pacemaker implant in August 2024, and is awaiting bypass surgery at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. Given that representations are not entertained unless the officer joins the new posting a condition not enforced for respondents 3 to 5, the applicant has no other option other than to approach this Tribunal for speedy and efficacious remedy. Hence the present OA.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Applicant has clearly established that during the general transfer period, all the Private Respondents herein and the Applicant have been subjected to order of transfer. In and by the said order, all the three Private Respondents have been subjected to transfer out of Chennai. The said order of transfer issued during general transfer period also declares that none of the representations will be considered unless they join the transferred place. In such circumstances, it cannot even be case of the Respondents that all the Private Respondents herein have submitted their representations and it is based on their representations, the order of transfer have been modified. It cannot even be the case of the Respondents that all the persons whose transfer orders have now been modified have been subjected to sexual harassment complaint and ICC has recommended the transfers. It is not even the case that a single o