Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2457

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Santosh Kumar Karnani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.4540/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Sunil
For the Respondents: Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak

Transfer orders quashed when they impair Article 21 rights to fair trial by hindering defence in distant proceedings, especially post-suspension revocation without balancing guidelines or fresh exigency (28 words).

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Transfer of government servant - Fundamental Rule 11 - CBDT Transfer and Placement Guidelines, 2010 - Paras 6, 7.1, 7.2 - Article 21 of Constitution - Transfer order issued immediately upon revocation of suspension to distant region, impairing ability to defend multiple pending criminal and departmental proceedings at locations over 2600 km away, quashed as it rendered reinstatement illusory, violated right to fair trial and livelihood, and failed to balance administrative exigency with compassionate/medical grounds; no fresh material justifying relocation previously held unsustainable - Placement Committee minutes must reflect consideration of such balancing. (Paras 37-45)

(B) Service Law - Suspension and reinstatement - Contemporaneous transfer post-revocation renders reinstatement meaningless if it obstructs effective participation in judicial proceedings; administrative discretion under transfer guidelines cannot override constitutional rights. (Paras 42-43)

(C) Judicial Review - Transfer orders - Not absolute incidence of service; interference warranted where vitiated by colourable exercise of power, substantial impairment of Article 21 rights, or non-consideration of guidelines mandating compassionate grounds evaluation. (Paras 39-40)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, an officer facing multiple criminal investigations and departmental proceedings primarily at two locations, had prior transfer to distant region quashed by Tribunal (affirmed by High Court) for prejudicing defence under Article 21. Suspension revoked on 20.06.2025, but same day transfer order issued to distant region followed by posting, despite representations on health, family, and legal hardships; salary/subsisitence allowance withheld for 38 months.

Findings of Court:
Impugned transfer/placement order and consequential postings set aside; respondents directed to post applicant at or near locations of pending proceedings within two months; withheld dues with interest processed within eight weeks.

Issues: Whether impugned transfer order sustainable despite prior judicial quashing of similar relocation, timing with suspension revocation, logistical barriers to defending proceedings, and non-consideration of guidelines; jurisdiction of Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer, though administrative, subject to judicial review if it substantially impairs Article 21 rights to fair trial/livelihood without balancing institutional interests or evaluating compassionate grounds per guidelines; timing and repetition without new exigency indicate colourable power exercise.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of transfers and investigations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. applicant's arguments on punitive transfer. (Para 9 , 10)
3. respondents defend administrative transfer necessity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. rejoinder alleges mala fides and article 21 violation. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. court analyzes timing and rights impairment. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
6. quash transfer; direct posting and dues release. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)

ORDER

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The applicant, by way of the present Original Application, has sought the following reliefs:

“a. Quash and set aside the impugned Transfer Order No. 162/2025 dated 20.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2/CBDT, transferring the Petitioner to the North Eastern Region and the consequential Posting Orders No. 151/2025 dated 25.06.2025 & 163/2025 dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Respondent No.3, thereafter posting him at ITAT, Guwahati;

b. Direct the Respondents to post the Petitioner to Ahmedabad or New Delhi within a time-bound period, where the criminal trials/investigation and other proceedings are pending.

c. Direct the Respondents to forthwith release all withheld salaries, and other due payments to the Petitioner, alongwith compensatory interest thereon, III accordance with law' , d. Pass such other or further order(s), direction(s) or relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant is an Indian Revenue Service officer of the 2005 batch (Civil Code: 05024) presently serving as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati. Prior to the present posting, he was functioning as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Range-I), Ahmedabad. During his tenure in Ahmedabad, the Applicant authorized a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year 2019 against the BSafal Group of Ahmedabad, which resulted in a voluntary disclosure of approximately Rs. 50 crores of additional unaccounted income, one of the highest disclosures in the Gujarat region in the preceding decade. Subsequently, in 2021, a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted by the Investigation Wing, revealing material irregularities in the financial affairs of the group, and the consequential assessment proceedings were placed under officers functioning under the supervisory control of the Applicant. The BSafal Group, an influential real estate conglomerate in Gujarat with deep political and bureaucratic connections, allegedly became apprehensive that the Applicant would not extend any undue favour in the discharge of his official duties.

3. On the basis of a complaint filed by one of the promoters of the group, Shri Rupesh B. Brahmbhatt, an FIR dated 04.10.2022 was registered by the Gujarat State Anti-Corruption Bureau and was subsequently transferred to and re-registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on 12.10.2022. Immediately thereafter, the Applicant was transferred on 07.10.2022 to the office of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad as Officer on Special Duty, and within three days, by order dated 10.10.2022, he was further transferred to Jorhat in the North Eastern Region and relieved on the same day. The Applicant contends that the said transfer was passed without administrative exigency and on extraneous and vindictive considerations.

4. Aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in O.A. No. 434 of 2022. By order dated 16.11.2022, the Tribunal permitted withdrawal of the application with liberty to make a representation and directed the respondents to consider whether the Applicant would be able to effectively defend the criminal case while posted in the North-East. The representation submitted in November 2022

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2457

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALHarvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)Santosh Kumar Karnani – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. No.4540/2025

Transfer orders quashed when they impair Article 21 rights to fair trial by hindering defence in distant proceedings, especially post-suspension revocation without balancing guidelines or fresh exigency (28 words).

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J), Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Santosh Kumar Karnani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.4540/2025