Transfer orders are valid under administrative exigency unless proven malicious or in violation of statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present Original Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenges the Order dated 16.04.2025 passed in O.A. No. 180/00145/2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent has been allowed.

2. The petitioners are the respondents in the Original Application, and the respondent herein was the applicant in the Original Application.

3. The respondent is a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Science at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Naval Base, Kochi, with effect from 21.10.2021. An order of transfer dated 26.03.2025 was issued, whereby she was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Naval Base, Kochi, to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chenneerkkara. She stood relieved from Kochi on

26.03.2025 itself to join at Chenneerkkara.

3.1 Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached the Tribunal seeking the quashment of Annexures A9 (transfer order) and A10 (relieving order). The respondent challenged the transfer on the ground that she was suffering from certain health issues and was not in a position to perform extra work in the afternoon, as insisted by the third petitioner.

3.2 Subsequently, she filed Annexure A1 representation on

25.10.2024. The representation was decided vide Annexure dated 29.10.2024, issuing a warning stating that her disruptive conduct, uncooperative attitude, and inappropriate communication had caused confusion and rifts among staff and administration, which amounted to interference in administration. The respondent was directed to adhere to administrative decisions, maintain professional decorum, and collaborate with colleagues.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the transfer of the respondent was a punitive transfer. The transfer was the outcome of certain allegations made by the respondent against the Principal regarding sexual harassment allegedly meted out to her on the school premises. The Principal as well as the Deputy Commissioner found that the conduct of the respondent was reprehensible. The Deputy Commissioner even considered taking disciplinary action against the respondent. Such acts of the respondent would amount to misconduct, for which action could perhaps have been initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules instead of transferring her. Therefore, the transfer order could not be upheld.

4.1 Further, the petitioners acted in a manner that amounted to punishing the respondent with mala fide intent to harass a female employee. All such acts were mala fide in nature. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed Annexures A9 and A10 and permitted the respondent to continue at Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Kochi. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present Original Petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal erred in allowing the Original Application. There is neither any violation of statutory provisions contained in the transfer policy, nor have mala fide intentions been alleged against any of the petitioners. The Tribunal’s finding that the transfer was punitive is wholly misplaced. Accordingly, the transfer cannot be termed as punitive.

5.1 The transfer was effected purely on account of administrative exigencies and requirements, with a view to ensuring the smooth functioning of school administration. There can be no departure from the general rule where all other teachers have been taking extra classes after regular school hours. It would also be difficult for young students to attend early morning extra classes. All these administrative considerations were taken into account before transferring the respondent. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.