Transfer of sanctioned post held mala fide where motivated by superior's animosity, lacking institutional justification, violating transfer rules, and following pattern of retaliatory actions against subordinates.

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicant, who is an Accountant in the National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training (NIFPHATT), a subordinate office under the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, with its headquarters at Kochi and an office at Visakhapatnam is aggrieved by Annexure A41 order dated 1.8.2025 by which the competent authority transferred the post of Accounts Officer from NIFPHATT, Kochi (Headquarters) to Visakhapatnam. By consequential order dated 1.8.2025 Annexure A23 the applicant was transferred from the Kochi Headquarters to its unit at Visakhapatnam as Accounts Officer.

2. The applicant is an officer under the said Unit since 2022. She had entered the respondents on 6.4.1987 and later promoted as Accounts Officer by Annexure A1 dated 1.4.2022. Applicant claims that she has been maintaining consistently very good track record. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and her APAR continuously reflected very good grading. By virtue of her office, she was also the Head of Office and also the CPIO under the RTI Act. There was only one sanctioned post of Accounts Officer in NIFPHATT. While so, the 2^nd respondent nominated one Mrs. Syndhya Mary of Processing Technology as the Head of Office and also the DDO, by Annexure A8 office order dated 23.7.2025. Subsequently, by Annexure A9 order of the same day, another officer of the Refrigeration Unit was appointed as the CPIO under the RTI Act. According to the applicant, she was divested of her powers consequent to the hostile attitude maintained by the 2^nd respondent Director against her on an alleged involvement of the applicant in relation to the granting of official quarters to a lower grade officer, one Vinod who was allotted the quarters. The said Vinod was employed as an Operator (Ice Plant) in NIFPHATT and was residing in a Type-II quarter. Due to his essential requirement in connection with the treatment of her father he had sought for a Type-III quarter, which he was entitled to. Annexures A10 to A14 documents indicate that there were several correspondences between the said Vinod and the office wherein he had reiterated his urgent need for a Type-III quarter. It was alleged that the 2^nd respondent refused to grant him the benefit and ultimately, the father of Vinod died. This prompted him to file a complaint against the 2^nd respondent before the Chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes as Annexure A15. It is admitted by the applicant that she had taken a favourable stand in the issue relating to Vinod which had completely antagonised the 3^rd respondent Director.

3. According to the applicant, on getting information about Annexure A15 complaint, the 2^nd respondent who is also arrayed in his personal capacity as the 3^rd respondent got infuriated, and apprehended that his lapse was made a subject matter of investigation by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and other competent authorities. As a step towards victimizing the applicant for having taken a stand in favour of the said Vinod, a proposal was put up to engage a consultant, in place of Accounts Officer. Annexure A16 draft proposal dated 8.7.2025 was addressed to the 1^st respondent wherein he had indicated that the applicant was not capable of discharging her duties of an Accounts Officer, and in the interest of the institution a consultant