Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Subin Chakaravrthy vs Southern Railway on 22 May, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.Nos. 180/00346/2024, 180/00347/2024 &
180/00348/2024
Friday, this the 22nd day of May, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
O.A. 346/2024
Subin Chakravarthy, S/o Chakran.N, Aged 40 years, Senior Assistant
Loco Pilot, Southern Railway, Ernakulam Junction, Residing at:
Kizhakke Cherukattu, Karikad.P.O., Cherthala - PIN-688 527,
Alappuzha.
-Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy, Mrs.Kala T Gopi, Mr.Kailesh T Gopi,
Mr. Rahul R, Ms.Mamatha S Anilkumar, Ms.Anna Reji]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by The General Manager, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Headquarters
Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
3. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram
Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 014.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 014.
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 01.4
Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30'
2
7. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappally
Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
8. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappally
Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
9. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer/Operations, Southern Railway,
Tiruchirappally Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs.Girija K Gopal]
O.A. 347/2024
Anoop Sukumaran, S/o V.N.Sukumaran Kartha, Aged 48 years, Loco
Pilot/Goods, Southern Railway, Ernakulam Junction, Residing at:
Anoop Nivas, Vadakkedathu House, CMRA 6, Companyppady
Junction, NeeleeswaramP.O., Kalady (via) - 683 574, Ernakulam Dist.
-Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy, Mrs.Kala T Gopi, Mr.Kailesh T Gopi,
Mrs.Nishitha Balachandran, Mr. Rahul R,
Ms.Mamatha S Anilkumar, Ms.Anna Reji]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by The General Manager, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Headquarters
Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
3. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters
Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30'
3
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram
Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 014.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 014.
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 01.4
7. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappally
Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
8. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappally
Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
9. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer/Operations, Southern Railway,
Tiruchirappally Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs.Girija K Gopal]
O.A. 348/2024
T.C.Sundaram, S/o T.I.Chendankutty, Aged 58 years,
Loco Pilot/Mail, Southern Railway, Ernakulam Junction,
Residing at: Thundiparambil House, Neelanjanam,
Koonammavu.P.O., PIN - 683 518, Ernakulam Dist.
-Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy, Mrs.Kala T Gopi, Mr.Kailesh T Gopi,
Mrs.Nishitha Balachandran, Mr. Rahul R,
Ms.Mamatha S Anilkumar, Ms.Anna Reji]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by The General Manager, Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30'
4
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Headquarters
Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
3. The Principal Chief Operations Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters
Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram
Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 014.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 014.
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thiruvananthapuram -695 01.4
7. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappally
Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
8. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappally
Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
9. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer/Operations, Southern Railway,
Tiruchirappally Junction, RS & P.O., Tiruchirappally - 620 001.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs.Girija K Gopal]
The Original Applications having been heard on 20.05.2026, the Tribunal
on 22.05.2026 delivered the following:
COMMON ORDER
Since common questions are raised for consideration and impugned document in all three Original Applications is Annexure-A1 order of transfer Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 5 dated 25.06.2024 and since respondents are the same, all these Original Applications were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Applicants in O.A.346/2024 had started service as Assistant Loco Pilot in Palakkad Division on 28.05.2007 with initial posting in Erode in Salem Division. He was later transferred to Trivandrum Division in May 2019 and was later promoted as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot and presently working at Ernakulam Junction as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot.
3. Applicant in O.A.347/2024 had started service as Assistant Loco Pilot on 27.06.2000 in South Eastern Railway. Later, he was transferred to Chennai Division of Southern Railway in 2003 and then to Trivandrum Division in 2008. He was promoted as Loco Pilot/Goods in 2022 and since then is working in Ernakulam Junction.
4. Applicant in O.A.348/2024 had commenced service as Assistant Loco Pilot in Palakkad Division on 08.07.1991. He was then transferred to Trivandrum Division in April 1999, in December 2015 was promoted as Loco Pilot/Mail. He is working in Ernakulam Junction from 2017 onwards and is due for retirement on 31.05.2026.
5. On 30.03.2024, All India Loco Running Staff Association, an Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 6 association of loco running staff of Trivandrum Division released a Malayalam video/movie by name 'siren' depicting the woes of loco running staff. These applicants had donned in the video. The applicant in O.A. 346/2024 acted as Assistant Loco Pilot, the applicant in O.A.347/2024 was characterised as Loco Pilot and the applicant in O.A.348/2024 was shown as the Crew Controller. It was a 17 minutes long video, where it was depicted that loco running staff are put on duty without giving proper rest, denying leave and other medical facilities. It was depicted that though a sick Loco Pilot was taken to the Railway doctor, the doctor refused to place him under sick list and directed to go back and attend duties after prescribing certain medicines. The request of leave was rejected by the Crew Controller.
6. According to the applicants, this video had depicted the sad plight of the loco running staff; it was intended to be circulated among the loco running staff through their WhatsApp group. But somebody had uploaded the same in YouTube, which provoked the Divisional Officers, who asked the applicants to delete the video from YouTube and not to circulate the same. But the applicants could not comply with the direction since it was beyond their control. It is submitted that, annoyed by the same, all the applicants were transferred through Annexure-A1 order to Villupuram depot in Thiruchirappilly Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 7 Division of the Southern Railway. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants have moved the Original Applications seeking to quash Annexure-A1, to direct the respondents to allow them to continue in Trivandrum Division as if Annexure- A1 had not been issued.
7. According to the applicants, Annexure-A1 is arbitrary, discriminatory and ultra vires Rule 226 of IREC and not based on consideration of relevant materials, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further, it is submitted that there is no exigencies of service warranting their transfer from Trivandrum Division to Thiruchirappilly Division, from one seniority unit to another, without any basis. Further, it is submitted that Annexure-A1 was issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer without any jurisdiction. The General Manager alone has power to effect such a transfer, that he has no power to delegate the power of transfer, to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer or the Divisional Railway Manager who has no control over the posts in Villupuram. Further, the applicant in O.A.346/2024 has submitted that his son is suffering from Cerebral Palsy and locomotor disability with 80% permanent disability. The son is studying in Deepthi Special School at Muhamma and in the circumstance, such a transfer is violative of Section 20(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 besides other standing Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 8 instructions.
8. It is also submitted that the transfer of the applicants is a short cut to punishment, in arbitrary exercise of power. No public interest is involved in the transfer and therefore it is sought to be quashed.
9. Respondents filed separate reply statements on identical lines. According to them, All India Loco Running Staff Association is not a recognized union by the Indian Railways. The video/movie was seen by 17000 viewers and had around 183 comments. It contained misleading information and baseless allegations against the Indian Railways. The intention of uploading the said video/movie on YouTube was to instigate and promote the attitude of 'break the rule' in the minds of the loco running staff. Viewing the video, a few staff started to break the rule of rest hours from 01.06.2024 and caused breakage of crew links and delay in freight train operation in Trivandrum Division. It resulted in more than 140 Running Staff refusing to report for duty after the eligible periodical rest. Thus it was found that allowing such Railway employees including the applicants to continue their service in Trivandrum division may help to create more such video/movie in local language by ruining the reputation of Indian Railway.
10. According to the respondents, thus the 6th respondent made a Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 9 proposal for inter-divisional transfer of the applicants on administrative grounds. The 5th respondent placed it before the competent authority. The proposal was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for obtaining approval of the competent authority. The 3rd respondent, the Principal Chief Operations Manager approved the proposal and the 2nd respondent communicated the approval to the 5th respondent and thus the applicants were transferred to Villupuram in Thiruchirappilly division on administrative grounds. Annexure-A1 order was issued on 25.06.2024 and they were instantly relieved from the office on 26.06.2024.
11. According to the respondents, the OAs are not maintainable. Annexure-A1 order was issued in larger public interest on administrative grounds with the approval of the Headquarters and no statutory rule has been violated.
12. All the applicants had reached Trivandrum Division on inter- divisional one way request transfer. After reaching the present station, they have not been considered for transfer from Ernakulam either on administrative ground or on promotion.
13. Referring to the paras 226 and 227 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I along with Railway Ministry's decision, it is Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 10 submitted that such a power of transfer of Group C and D Railway servants can be exercised in respect of transfer by the General Manager or by a lower authority to whom the power is re-deligated. Such a transfer order was issued in accordance with the powers delegated as per the Model Schedule of Powers (2018), Part F (Establishment Matters), Sub-Part II (Non-Gazetted) on administrative grounds as proposed by the 6th respondent.
14. Further, it is submitted that, on issuing Annexure-A1 order, the Crew Controller, Ernakulam Junction had relieved the applicants on 26.06.2024 for onward relieving to Thiruchirappalli Division. Consequently, the 5th respondent had issued Annexure-R5 order relieving them.
15. It is also submitted that the para 233 of IREC Volume-I is not applicable, considering the nature of job of a Loco Pilot. Once a Loco Pilot hands over the working of the locomotive to another Loco Pilot and signs off at crew changing point, the responsibility of running the train is over till he is booked for working for another train.
16. It is also submitted that the applicants working in a transferable post do not have any vested right to work at a particular place, they have no legal right to continue in Ernakulam and this Tribunal cannot interfere with the order of transfer made in public interest on administrative exigency. They have Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 11 also placed reliance on the decisions in State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal [2001 KHC 1195], Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 532], State of U. P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402, N.K.Singh v. Union of India and others [(1994) 6 SCC 98], S.C.Saxena v. Union of India and others [(2006) 9 SCC 583]. The contention that it is a short cut for imposing penalty is denied.
17. They have also submitted that the applicants have violated provisions of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules. Violating the same, they participated in the making of the said video/movie, which has effect of adverse criticism of policy or action of the Government. The video/movie had maligned the other Railway staff and misled the viewers which led to break the rules by the loco running staff.
18. Further, the order of transfer is not vindictive, malafide or arbitrary. They are governed by the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules. Fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(2). The applicants are bound to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and not to act in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant, in violation of the Rules. At the time of issuing Annexure-A1, there are 61 vacancies of Loco Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 12 Pilots in Thiruchirappally Division. For filling the 88 vacancies in Trivandrum Division, approval has been communicated for transfer of 157 employees from various Railways/Divisions, out of which 30 employees are from Thiruchirappalli Division. According to the respondents, the O.A. has been filed as a clear abuse of law.
19. Regarding the claim of the applicant in O.A.346/2024, it is submitted that he has no case that he is the main care giver of the son. So, the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.
20. The applicant in O.A.346/2024 filed rejoinder denying the contention that as a consequence of the release of the video, the employees had started to break the rules. The video was uploaded on 30.03.2024, whereas few staff had allegedly started breaking the rules only from 01.06.2024. According to him, the allegations raised by the respondents are vague and intended to create an element of bias in the mind of the Tribunal. No employee had refused to report for duty after eligible periodical rest. The transfer is only a measure of penalty and the respondents are guided by extraneous reasons in malafide exercise of power.
21. Further, it is submitted that the interim order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and the High Court had dismissed Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 13 the OPs.
22. The applicant in O.A.346/2024 has also submitted that he is the main care giver of the son. For proving the same, Annexure-A15 document was also produced. Two persons are required to take care of the child, that given the physical condition of the child, it is not possible to take him to Villupuram.
23. Heard Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicants and Smt.Girija K Gopal and Sri.N.Sreejith, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways, in extenso.
24. While reiterating the contentions in the O.A. and the rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicants relied on the decisions reported in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [(2009) 2 SCC 592], Gopinathan M and another v. State of Kerala and others [2014 (4) KLT 285], a decision of this Tribunal in O.A.51/2023 dated 01/08/2023, which was rendered basing on Somesh Tiwari etc. and also the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) 37736/2025 dated 16.10.2025. According to him, apart from the common contentions raised, the documents produced by the applicant in O.A.346/2024 touching the immunity granted to the guardian of a child suffering from disability like Annexures-A3 to A7 and A14 cannot be disregarded by the Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 14 Tribunal.
25. On the other hand, Smt.Girija K Gopal, learned Standing Counsel has relied on the decisions in Union of India and others v. Sri.Janardhan Debanath and another [(2004) 4 SCC 245] and a common judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No.6561/2023 etc. dated 06.03.2023.
26. Sri.N.Sreejith, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the seniority of the applicants when given inter-divisional transfer will be governed by the Master Circular on the subject and therefore the applicants should not have any concern about their seniority in Thiruchirappally Division.
27. Both the learned Standing Counsel also reiterated that the applicants stood relieved immediately after issuing of Annexure-A1, which was duly communicated to them, they had knowledge about the transfer and after having relieved they cannot maintain such an application before the Tribunal. But, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, the question that they were already relieved from the present station was considered by this Tribunal. In the Writ Petition filed before the High Court, the High Court also confirmed the order of the Tribunal.
28. Except the fact that the son of the applicant in O.A.346/2024 is suffering from Cerebral Palsy and locomotor disability, who has claimed Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 15 immunity from transfer on the strength of various Office Memoranda and instructions issued by both the DoPT as well as the Railways, the contentions in all these OAs are common. According to the applicants, they were transferred to a distant station outside the Trivandrum Division on extraneous considerations and is penal in nature. Secondly, it was contended that the order was not issued by the competent authority that the applicants are not liable to be transferred. Moreover, it is submitted that there is no exigency of service as stated in the order. There are 88 vacancies in Trivandrum Division whereas there is no vacancy in Thiruchirappally , where they were transferred and therefore it is vitiated by malafides. These allegations are denied by the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that the transfers are vitiated by malafides, it is vindictive in nature and that was how even without relieving it was submitted that they were relieved, but the Tribunal realised the hollowness of the contention and an order of status quo was passed initially and thereafter, they were directed to be engaged in Ernakulam Junction itself, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. The learned counsel also pointed out that despite such positive directions, the respondents were hesitant in re-engaging them, in disbursing their salary and then granting them running allowances and for all these they Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 16 had to move separately and all these show the attitude of the respondents towards the applicants.
29. It has come out that at the time of admitting the O.A., an order of status quo was passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondents maintained that the applicants were already relieved on 26.06.2024. After considering that aspect, by order dated 17.07.2024 this Tribunal found that they were not actually relieved and were directed to engage them as if the order had not taken effect. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in OPs, which were dismissed and ultimately the respondents had no option but to re-engage them. Thereafter, the salary and allowances were also paid. Now the applicants are continuing on the strength of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal.
30. It has come out that all the applicants had started service as Assistant Loco Pilots in different Divisions and later transferred to Trivandrum Division by one way inter-divisional transfer and presently are working in Ernakulam Junction. Annexure-A1 is an out of turn transfer. It is neither a routine nor a rotational transfer. But they have been transferred from their convenient station to Villupuram in Thiruchirappally Division, which is clearly inconvenient to them. All of them belong to Kerala; they had obtained inter-
Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 17 divisional transfer to Trivandrum Division to their convenience after pointing out their inconveniences foregoing their past seniority. Now they have been transferred to a far of Division which has caused utter inconveniences to them. In the case of the applicant in O.A.346/2024 it is very clear from Annexure-A2 that his male child, who is presently 15 years old, is suffering from locomotor disability of lower limb by 60% and Cerebral Palsy brain of 60% and total disability is 80%, which permanent in nature. Of course, ordinarily, the guardian of such a child should not have been transferred to a far of place as done through Annexure-A1. Even though there is no positive averment that the applicant in O.A.346/2024 is the main care giver of the child, still, it has to be assumed that he has also positive roles in bringing up and taking care of the child having 80% disability. Such a person deserves sympathetic consideration on humanitarian grounds while displacing from one place to another.
31. Evidently, all these applicants never wanted them to be transferred to a far of place. The applicant in O.A.348/2024 is due for retirement on 31.05.2026. That means, he has been transferred through Annexure-A1 on the eve of his retirement, which ordinarily should not have happened. Any how, the provocation for transfer is apparently the fact that they had acted in a video issued by the All India Loco Running Staff Association.
Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 18 According to the respondents, that had invited the other running staff of Trivandrum Division to break the rules and had caused inconveniences to the running of the establishment. This has been denied by the applicants.
32. It is true that the impugned transfer order has been issued on administrative ground. According to the respondents, continuance of the applicants in the present stations would prejudice the interest of the establishment and thus, in public interest only, they were transferred. But, such a contention is not convincing.
33. It is the specific case of the applicants that they were transferred to Villupuram on penal grounds as a penalty for having donned in a video by name 'siren' which was uploaded in the YouTube. That has been tacitly admitted by the respondents in the reply. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the reply statement read thus:
"2. At the outset, the facts and circumstances leading to issuance of Ann.A1-order are as follows: -
On 30.03.2024, a Malayalam video/movie titled 'SIREN', having a length of 17 minutes and 33 seconds, was found uploaded on YouTube, in the name of 'All India Loco Running Staff Association' ('AILRSA'), an association of loco running staff working in Trivandrum Division, which is not recognized as a Trade Union in Indian Railways. The video/movie had been seen by 17000+ viewers, and around 183 comments were Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 19 also made by the viewers encouraging the Railway Running Staff to act against the prevailing rules in Indian Railways.
3. It is submitted that the content of the said video/movie included misleading information and baseless allegations against Indian Railways. Apparently, the intention of uploading the said video/movie on YouTube was to instigate and promote the attitude of "break the rule" in the minds of Loco Running Staff, because as a consequence of it, few staff started to break the prevailing rules of rest hours from 01.06.2024, which in turn caused the breakage of crew links, and delay in Freight Train operation in Trivandrum Division."
34. Resultantly, the 6th respondent had made a proposal before the 5 th respondent which is evident from Annexure-R1, which reads thus:
"Railway employees who had handled the three characters in the said movie are identified as Mr.T.C.Sundaram, Loco Pilot/Mail/ERS, Mr.Anoop Sukumaran, Loco Pilot/Good/ERS, and Mr.Subin Chakravarthy, Senior Assistant Loco Pilot/ERS. They had committed the following serious mistakes, • They had acted in the said movie without obtaining permission from the authority.
• They acted wilfully in the said movie by knowing the mala fide intention of it.
• They had utilized the driving cab of the Locomotive owned by Indian Railways to shoot their said movie without obtaining permission.
• They had instigated other running staff of TVC Division to 'break the rules' movement through the said movie. Evidently, Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 20 140+ running staff in TVC had so far refused to report for duty after their eligible Periodical Rest.
It is felt that allowing Mr.T.C.Sundaram Loco Pilot/Mail/ERS, Mr Anoop Sukumaran, Loco Pilot/Good/ERS, and Mr.Subin Chakravarthy, Sr Asst. Loco Pilot/ERS to continue their service in TVC Division may help them further to create more movies in local language by ruining the reputation Indian Railways, and can put passengers & other law abiding railway staff into more trouble.
Hence, it is proposed to transfer Mr. T.T.Sundaram, Loco Pilot/Mail/ERS to PGT Division, Mr.Anoop Sukumarn, Loco Pilot/Goods/ERS to MAS Division, and Mr. Subin Chrkravarthy, Sr. Asst. LP/ERS to SA Division, where they had joined first time in Southern Railway.
Sr.DPO/TVC is kindly requested to put up the above proposal for obtaining the approval of the appropriate Authorities, please."
That means, the proposal was placed before the 5 th respondent, who had passed it to the 2nd respondent and ultimately the transfer was effected with the concurrence of the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Chennai and the Principal Chief Operating Manager of Chennai. That means, the transfer has the approval of the respondents 2 and 3 so that it complies the mandate under paras 226 and 227 of the Railway Establishment Code. Therefore, it cannot be said that Annexure-A1 order has been passed by an incompetent officer. The respondents 2 and 3 have jurisdiction over both Trivandrum and Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 21 Thiruchirappally Divisions, hence it cannot be heard to say that the order has been issued by an incompetent officer. That contention is rejected.
35. All the same, it has come out that the transfer was effected in lieu of penal action against the applicants for having acted in a video by name 'siren'. In fact, such an argument of the respondents cannot be appreciated and upheld. It is true that transfer is an incident of service and the applicants are liable to work in any of the Division or Railway under the Indian Railways. They have no vested right to work in a particular station or place. It is for the employer to decide where the employee should work. All these applicants had obtained convenient transfers to Trivandrum Division after having initially appointed in different Divisions. While working in Trivandrum Division, they have been abruptly transferred to Villupuram, provoked by the fact that they had acted in a video which, according to the respondents, is in violation of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules.
36. It has come out that a video by name 'siren' was released by the All India Loco Running Staff Association without the permission of the respondents. There is also allegations that while shooting the video the bogie of the Railway was also captured, which was without the permission of the respondents. There was also a contention that All India Loco Running Staff Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 22 Association is not a recognised union under the Indian Railways. But the applicants have a case that even though it is not recognised by the Railways, it is an association registered under the Trade Unions Act. It is not necessary for this Tribunal to go into such aspects of the matter but suffice it to say that it is the common case that all the applicants had donned as characters in the said video, which was intended to highlight the woes of the running staff. They have a case that they were not given appropriate rest after each engagement or weekly engagements. Further, the contention that there are 88 vacancies of Loco Pilots in Trivandrum Division is not denied. It was stated that there was no vacancy in Villupuram, which has been denied by the respondents. According to them, there are 66 vacancies in Villupuram.
37. Whatever it may be, the reason for transferring the applicants is for having acted in such a video. They had also did not oblige the direction for deleting it from YouTube.
38. In the decision in Somesh Tiwari, quoted supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follow:
" 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 Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 23 liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."
39. According to the Supreme Court, passing an order of transfer based on an irrelevant ground, that is on the allegations made against the applicant in an anonymous complaint, is malafide exercise of power.
40. It is the settled proposition of law that an order of transfer which is used as a cloak for punishment will be a malafide exercise of power. The reason is obvious. Punishment is imposed on an employee for misconduct. If there are allegations of misconduct against an employee, the proper course is to take steps for initiating disciplinary proceedings. Transfer of such an employee cannot be in the interest of good administration for the simple reason that there will be a real likelihood of further misconduct committed by him at the transferred place and also because he escapes the penal sanctions which have been engrafted in service law in the public interest. Here, there are reasons to think that the applicants have committed acts of misconduct and violated the Conduct Rules. Both the Standing Counsel for the respondents was asked as to whether any disciplinary proceeding has been contemplated against the applicants, they replied in the negative. According to him, it is open to the respondents, still to initiate action. But, so for no action has been taken. In other words, they have been transferred in lieu of initiation of disciplinary Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 24 proceedings which is bad and cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Moreover, all the applicants have been transferred to Villupuram together and there is no guarantee that they will not repeat the very same misconduct in the transferred division also. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari, such a transfer is bad and cannot be approved.
41. Secondly, the administrative grounds stated by the respondents is lacking in particulars. The contention that there are 88 vacancies of Loco Pilots in Trivandrum Division is not denied. It is clear that the transfer is motivated by the conduct of the applicants that they had donned in the said video and had used the Railway properties for shooting the same. There is no doubt that those are acts violating the provisions of the Conduct Rules. Instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings for the alleged misconduct, they have been transferred which is only vindictive in nature and is a malafide exercise of power.
42. The case advanced by the applicant in O.A.346/2024 that he is having a 15 year old male child suffering from 80% permanent disability also cannot be brushed aside. Even though there is no positive averment that he is the main care giver, his presence at the place where the child is living cannot be ignored. As a member of the running staff, he may not be able to be Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 25 present at home round the clock. Still, it is only in the interest of the child that the presence of the father is made available in the place where the child is brought up. Therefore, the contention that he is the guardian of a child having 80% permanent disability also should be taken into consideration while granting the order of transfer.
43. In my considered opinion, Annexure-A1 is vitiated by malafides. The order of transfer has been made in lieu of initiating disciplinary proceedings against them, which is vitiated.
44. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants, earlier, this Tribunal had rejected the plea that the applicants were already relieved immediately after issuing Annexure-A1. They were directed to be re- engaged in Ernakulam Junction. The respondents had challenged the order in Hon'ble High Court and the High Court also confirmed the order and thereafter they had to be re-engaged. There are materials to show that for granting them pay after re-engaging, for paying running allowance etc. they had to move this Tribunal. All these show the vindictive attitude of the respondents, which cannot be a guiding factor for effecting transfers. If the applicants have violated any provision of the Conduct Rules, it is open to the respondents to proceed against them in accordance with law and not by punishing them Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 26 through an order of transfer to a distant station.
Annexure-A1 is quashed and all the Original Applications are allowed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 22nd May, 2026)
JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30'
27
List of Annexures
O.A.346/2024
Annexure-A1: A true copy of the Office order No.36/2024/ELEC(OP) dated 25.06.2024, issued by the 5th respondent.
Annexure-A2: A true copy of the Disability Certificate issued by the District Medical Officer, Alleppey and also a copy of the Unique Disability ID issued as regards the applicant's child.
Annexure-A3: A true copy of the Office Order No.42011/3/2014-Estt.(Res.) dated 06.06.2014, issued by the DoP&T. Annexure-A4: A true copy of the Railway Board order bearing RB/Estt.no.85/2014 dated 01.08.2014.
Annexure-A5: A true copy of the O.M bearing No.42011/3/2014-Estt. (Res.) dated 17.11.2014, issued by the DoP&T. Annexure-A6: A true copy of the Railway Board RBE No. 137/2014 dated 10.12.2014.
Annexure-A7: A true copy of the Railway Board order RBE No.15/2019 dated 30.01.2019.
Annexure-A8:A true copy of the Appendix VI of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I as published by the Railway Board. Annexure-A9: A true copy of the interim order rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in Ο.Α.Νο.180/346/2024 dated 26.06.2024. Annexure-A10: A true copy of the screenshot of the Whatsapp communication received by the applicant on 26.06.2024 from Shri K.C.Biju, the Chief Crew Controller.
Annexure-A11: A true copy of the Lawyer Notice dated 27.06.2024 with Postal Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 28 receipt addressed to the 4th and 6th respondents.
Annexure-A12: A true extract of G & SR 419, as published in the General and Subsidiary Rules published by the Southern Railway. Annexure-A13: A true copy of the the screenshot indicating the receipt of Annexure-A11, by email addressed to the respondents 4 and 6. Annexure-A14 A true copy of the order of the Department of Personnel & Training bearing No.36035/1/2000-Estt(Res) dated 18.02.2020. Annexure-A15: A true copy of the certificate No.1870286708 dated 13.01.2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Alappuzha.
Annexure R1:True copy of Proposal for Inter Divisional transfer of Running Staff working in Trivandrum Division, dated 13.06.2024 of the 6th respondent Annexure R2:True copy of the Notes (Computer No.227585) Annexure R3:True copy of the letter No.E.File 28 No.227585 dated 24.06.2024 issued from the Office of the 2nd respondent Annexure R4:True copy of the proceedings dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Crew Controller, Ernakulam Annexure R5: True copy of Office Order No. Relieving ON IDT TO TPJ ON ADMINISTRATIVE GROUND, dated 26.06.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent Annexure R1(A): True copy of e-Office document evidencing the approval of the Competent Authority Annexure R1(B): True copy of the relieving letter dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Crew Controller Annexure R1(C): True copy of the advance copy of legal notice dated 27.06.2024 served by hand in the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Trivandrum Division Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 29 O.A.347/2024 Annexure-A1: A true copy of the Office order No.36/2024/ELEC(OP) dated 25.06.2024, issued by the 5th respondent.
Annexure-A2: A true copy of the Appendix VI of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I as published by the Railway Board. Annexure-A3: A true copy of the interim order rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.180/347/2024 dated 26.06.2024. Annexure-A4: A true copy of the screenshot of the Whatsapp communication received by the applicant on 26.06.2024 from Shri K.C.Biju, the Chief Crew Controller.
Annexure-A5: A true copy of the Lawyer Notice dated 27.06.2024 with Postal receipt addressed to the 4th and 6th respondents.
Annexure-A6: A true extract of G & SR 419, as published in the General and Subsidiary Rules published by the Southern Railway. Annexure-A7: A true copy of the screenshot indicating the receipt of Annexure- A5 by email addressed to the respondents 4 and 6.
AnnexureR1(A): True copy of e-Office document evidencing the approval of the Competent Authority Annexure R1(B): True copy of the relieving letter dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Crew Controller Annexure R1(C): True copy of the advance copy of legal notice dated 27.06.2024 served by hand in the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Trivandrum Division AnnexureR1:True copy of Proposal for Inter Divisional transfer of Running Staff working in Trivandrum Division, dated 13.06.2024 of the 6th respondent Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 30 Annexure R2:True copy of the Notes (Computer No.227585) Annexure R3: True copy of the letter No.E.File No.227585 dated 24.06.2024 issued from the Office of the 2nd respondent Annexure R4:True copy of the proceedings dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Crew Controller, Ernakulam Annexure R5: True copy of Office Order No. Relieving ON IDT TO TPJ ON ADMINISTRATIVE GROUND, dated 26.06.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent O.A.348/2024 Annexure-A1: A true copy of the Office order No.36/2024/ELEC(OP) dated 25.06.2024, issued by the 5th respondent.
Annexure-A2: A true copy of the Appendix VI of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I as published by the Railway Board. Annexure-A3: A true copy of the interim order rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.180/348/2024 dated 26.06.2024. Annexure-A4: A true copy of the screenshot of the Whatsapp communication received by the applicant on 26.06.2024 from Shri K.C.Biju, the Chief Crew Controller.
Annexure-A5: A true copy of the Lawyer Notice dated 27.06.2024 with Postal receipt addressed to the 4th and 6th respondents.
Annexure-A6: A true extract of G & SR 419, as published in the General and Subsidiary Rules published by the Southern Railway. Annexure-A7: A true copy of the screenshot indicating the receipt of Annexure- A5 by email addressed to the respondents 4 and 6.
AnnexureR1(A): True copy of e-Office document evidencing the approval of the Competent Authority Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30' 31 Annexure R1(B): True copy of the relieving letter dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Crew Controller Annexure R1(C): True copy of the advance copy of legal notice dated 27.06.2024 served by hand in the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Trivandrum Division Annexure R1:True copy of Proposal for Inter Divisional transfer of Running Staff working in Trivandrum Division, dated 13.06.2024 of the 6th respondent Annexure R2:True copy of the Notes (Computer No.227585) Annexure R3: True copy of the letter No.E.File No.227585 dated 24.06.2024 issued from the Office of the 2nd respondent Annexure R4:True copy of the proceedings dated 25.06.2024 issued by the Crew Controller, Ernakulam Annexure R5: True copy of Office Order No. Relieving ON IDT TO TPJ ON ADMINISTRATIVE GROUND, dated 26.06.2024 issued by the 5th Respondent ************ Deepa S 2026.05.22 12:34:23+05'30'