Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12063
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.G. Sewlikar, J
Dr. Digambar Pandurang Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./518/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R.G. Walia, Mr. Puneet Pathak, Ms. Pranjali Jadhav
For the Respondents: Mr. R.R. Shetty, Mr. Amit Band, Dr. V.S. Masurkar
Cadre officers cannot be transferred to non-cadre posts without valid justification; mid-term transfers must comply with legislative provisions and established norms.
Headnote:(A) Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 - Rule 8 and Rule 9 - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Section 22(N) - Transfer of Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur to a non-cadre post - Challenged on grounds of illegality, political motives and violation of statutory tenure requirements - IPS officer cannot be transferred to a non-cadre post in absence of extraordinary circumstances or if a suitable cadre officer is available - Mid-term transfer must be justified with valid reasons. (Paras 2, 36, 38)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, an IPS officer, challenged his transfer to the post of Superintendent of Police, Protection of Civil Rights, claiming it violated the two-year tenure requirement per Maharashtra Police Act and was politically motivated. His service record was unblemished. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The transfer was set aside as it violated procedural and statutory provisions, noting that the applicant, as a cadre officer, could not be transferred to a non-cadre post without valid reasons. (Paras 38-39)
Issues: The legality of mid-term transfer of an IPS officer; whether the transfer violated statutory tenure provisions; and if there were valid administrative reasons justifying the transfer. (Paras 3, 4, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a cadre officer should not be transferred to a non-cadre post unless special circumstances justified such action, which were not present in this case. (Paras 34-36)
Result: The transfer order dated 27th June 2025 was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's service details and transfer challenge. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments against applicant's transfer and its legality. (Para 3 , 4 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. arguments justifying the transfer and administrative reasons. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's interpretation of relevant rules. (Para 25 , 28) |
| 5. court's decision on the legality of the transfer. (Para 34 , 36) |
| 6. final ruling and closure of the case. (Para 38 , 39) |
ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
The applicant has raised challenge to the Order dated 27th June, 2025 whereby he has been transferred from Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur to Superintendent of Police, Protection of Civil Rights, Nagpur.
2. Facts in brief are that the applicant is an IPS (Promotee) Officer and presently, he is posted as Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Nagpur. He has left three years of service for retirement. He has unblemished and outstanding service record till date. Respondent no. 4 is 13 years junior to the applicant in service. He is a State Police Officer and not an Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer. It is the contention of the applicant that he was posted as Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Nagpur vide order dated 13th August, 2024. Therefore, his term will come to an end in the month of August, 2026 and in turn he can thereafter, be transferred only in the month of April/May, 2027. As per Section 22(N) of the Maharashtra Police Act , he has a tenure of two years on the said post and he cannot be transferred as he has not completed two years in the present post. The applicant being an IPS Officer cannot be posted on a “Non-Cadre Post”. Respondent no. 4 being not an IPS Officer cannot be posted on any Cadre Post. However, the applicant in less than one year came to be transferred to Nagpur i.e. on 27th June, 2025.
3. He contends that the order of transfer is in violation of the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.S.R. Subramanian , AIR 2014 SC 263 . He further contends that the transfer of the applicant is against the provisions of Rule 8 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (Annexure- A-5). The applicant being a Cadre Officer cannot be transferred from Cadre Post to Non-Cadre Post. Respondent no. 4 is a Non-Cadre Officer and he cannot be posted on the post of Cadre Officer i.e. Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur. The impugned order of transfer is in violation of Section 22(N) read with Section 2(6A) and 2(6B) of the Maharashtra Police Act . The applicant’s case could not have been presented before the concerned Board which is specifically constituted for consideration of eligible officer to be transferred in accordance with law. He avers that in terms of Section 22(N) of the Maharashtra Police Act , normal tenure can be altered only for the reasons mentioned in Section 22(N). None of these ingredients of Section 22(N) are available for the respondents to transfer the applicant. The transfer of the applicant is a political transfer. He contends that the order of transfer is malicious, arbitrary and, therefore, it needs to be set aside.
4. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed their reply. They contend that respondent no. 4 assumed the charge of Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagpur on 28th June, 2025. The posting of respondent no. 4 is made in a bonafide manner and in the interest of the State. The transfer of the applicant does not infringe any statutory rights, and the assertion that the applicant is being posted to a non-cadre post by way of demotion is misleading and incorrect. The reassignment was necessitated on account of administrative reasons for smooth functioning of the ACB, Nagpur. The applicant, being an IPS Officer is liable to serve anywhere in Maharashtra. The respondents have neither violated transfer nor violated any of the service rules governing the service conditions of the applicant. They contend that in terms of Section 22(N)(
