Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4597

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anand S. Khati, Member
Nitesh Kohar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
M.A. No. 5517/2025|M.A. No. 3227/2025|M.A. No. 3642/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.K. Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Jalaj Agarwal

Transfer is incident of service; no vested right to implementation if cancelled for valid administrative reasons like unauthorized absence; compassionate transfer needs certified disability proof; no equitable relief for breach of discipline. (38 words)

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Transfer orders - Administrative law - Applicant sought implementation of transfer order issued on humanitarian grounds but later kept in abeyance and cancelled due to prolonged unauthorized absence and memorandum issued therefor - Transfer is an incident of service with no vested right to particular posting; interference warranted only if vitiated by mala fides, incompetence, or statutory violation - Cancellation based on relevant administrative considerations including misconduct not arbitrary - Compassionate grounds require certified disability documentation under transfer guidelines, absent which no enforceable right - Equitable relief denied to employee in breach of discipline. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)

(B) Judicial review - Scope limited; not appellate forum to reassess employer discretion unless perverse or illegal - Subsequent developments post-transfer order justify reconsideration without creating indefeasible right. (Paras 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, working as Group ‘C’ employee, transferred to new posting vide order dated 14.05.2025 on humanitarian grounds citing family medical issues, but not relieved; remained absent since 01.04.2025 with leave applications rejected for lack of documentation; memorandum issued for unauthorized absence; transfer kept in abeyance on 27.05.2025 and cancelled on 25.07.2025 on administrative grounds.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders valid; no illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides; applicant’s conduct disentitles relief.

Issues: (i) Whether vested right to implement transfer order; (ii) Whether impugned abeyance and cancellation orders illegal/arbitrary/mala fide; (iii) Entitlement to relief despite unauthorized absence. (Para 13)

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer orders reviewable only for mala fides or illegality; administrative cancellation justified by employee’s prolonged unauthorized absence and lack of certified medical evidence for compassionate claim; no equitable relief for undisciplined conduct; distinguishes cases with proven certified disabilities.

Result: O.A. dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.

Table of Content
1. transfer order issued but held in abeyance due to absence. (Para 1 , 3)
2. applicant's claims of humanitarian transfer and family hardship. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11)
3. respondents justify cancellation citing unauthorized absence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. transfer is incident of service, no vested right. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. cancellation valid due to misconduct and unsubstantiated claims. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. oa dismissed; no enforceable right or relief. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

O R D E R

By virtue of the present Original Application (OA), the applicant is seeking implementation of the transfer order dated 14.05.2025, whereby he has been transferred from Chennai to Delhi. He has sought for the following reliefs in the OA:-

“(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order No. 163/2025 dated 27.05.2025 (A-1) and order F.No. Est-19/1/2024- EST-HO dated 25.07.2025 (A-1A) and direct the respondents to implement the transfer order dated 14.05.2025/transfer the applicant to Delhi.

(ii) To declare the action of respondents in not implementing the transfer order of applicant dated 14.05.2025 as illegal and direct the respondent to relieve the applicant as per transfer order dated 14.05.2025.

(iii) To direct the respondents to transfer the applicant to Delhi as per his entitlement and in consonance with the transfer policy.

(iv) To allow the OA with costs.

(v) To pass any other further orders to this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to the order of this Tribunal dated 12.08.2025, which reads as under:

"The applicant is working with the respondents as UDC, who has been transferred from Chennai Zonal Office-II to HQRs, Training vide order dated 14.05.2025. However, the transfer order has been kept in abeyance and cancelled vide the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 25.07.2025, respectively.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the arguments made by the applicant's counsel and states that the respondents were entirely authorized to take such a decision in the administrative interest, and they have not violated any transfer policy prevailing in the organization, and no discrimination has been made against the applicant.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7308/2008 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3516 of 2007 in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and Ors.), highlighting paras '19' and '20', which reads as under:

“19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law.

20. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.”

To strengthen the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the decision rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam, in O.A. No.180/00248/2025 vide order dated 11.08.2025 titled as P Radhakrishnan vs. Union of India, represented by Secretary and Ors., which reads as under:

“43. As pointed out by the respondents, transfer is an incident of service. The applicant is having all India transfer liabil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4597

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALAnand S. Khati, MemberNitesh Kohar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentM.A. No. 5517/2025|M.A. No. 3227/2025|M.A. No. 3642/2025

Transfer is incident of service; no vested right to implementation if cancelled for valid administrative reasons like unauthorized absence; compassionate transfer needs certified disability proof; no equitable relief for breach of discipline. (38 words)

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anand S. Khati, Member
Nitesh Kohar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
M.A. No. 5517/2025|M.A. No. 3227/2025|M.A. No. 3642/2025