Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Devendra Pratap Singh vs North Central Railway on 28 August, 2025
OA No. 62 of 2024
(Reserved on 18.08.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 28th day of August, 2025.
Original Application No. 62 of 204
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
PUNIT
KUMAR
Devendra Pratap Singh, aged about 29 years, son of, Sri Netrapal Singh,
MISHRA
resident of, House No. 4, near Pachauri Musico, Saraswat Enclave,
Tundla, Firozabad U.P.
Substantively posted as Assistant Loco Pilot, Tundla Lobby, under
Allahabad Division of North Central Railway, Prayagraj, but now under
orders of temporary transfer/transfer on loan, to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya
Nagar, North Central Railway, Prayagraj in the same capacity vide the
impugned transfer order dated 03.11.2023
. . .Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Shyamal Narain
VERSUS
1. The Union of India, through the General Manager, North Central
Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
3. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operating), North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
4. Sri Pradeep Sharma, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer,
(Operating), North Central Railway, Allahabad.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
.. . .Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
Shri Rajesh Kumar
ORDER
Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the official Page 1 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 respondents as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-4 at the time of hearing of the case.
2. This Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant on 16.01.2024, seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) To quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated PUNIT KUMAR 03.11.2023, qua the applicant (Annexure No. A-1 to Compilation MISHRA No. I) with all consequential benefits to him.
b) Issue such other suitable orders or directions as might be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
c) Award the costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant, throughout."
3. The case of the applicant lies in a narrow compass is that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot on 28.04.2022 under the North Central Railway (hereinafter referred as NCR) and after successful completion of requisite training, w.e.f 25.08.2022, the applicant was posted at Tundla Lobby of NCR, Allahabad. 3.1 On 20/21.09.2023, one Shri Shyam Baran Singh, Senior Assistant Loco Pilot died unnaturally and it was widely rumoured that he was committed suicide due to work related to tensions, stress as well as under pressures as created by Shri Kaushal Kishore, Loco Inspector under whom he was working, which was followed by continuous protests, marches and meetings. As a consequence thereof, the said Loco Inspector was manhandled by the protestors till that time the applicant had put off from duty and was at his home and learnt about the happening of the said incident through whatsapp messages. 3.2 On 27.09.2023, the applicant was hospitalized from 27.09.2023 to 03.10.2023 due to fever at Railway Hospital, Tundla and resumed his services on 05.10.2023. Upon joining, the applicant was not assigned any duty till 07.10.2023 for the reasons best known to the higher Page 2 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 Authorities. The applicant went on casual leave on 08.10.2023, but when he reported on 09.10.2023, he was booked off for Allahabad vide order dated 09.10.2023 and was directed to report to Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, NCR, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred Sr. DEE) for a meeting. 3.3 On 10.10.2023, the applicant reported at Sr. DEE‟s office at PUNIT KUMAR Prayagraj at 09:30 am, but was given an audience only at 4:30 pm. After MISHRA commencement of the meeting, the applicant was flabbergasted by the actions of the Sr. DEE as he forcefully confiscated the applicant‟s mobile and transferred its data in office computer. The Sr. DEE told the Chief Loco Inspector, who was also present in the meeting that the applicant shall remain suspended and should report at his office every morning at 09:00 AM and stand up at the door till 6:00 PM in the evening. 3.4 Feeling aggrieved by the actions of the Sr. DEE, the applicant lodged an Online F.I.R. at Police Station, Civil Lines, Prayagraj on 11.10.2023 in respect of incidents that took place on 10.10.2023 including confiscation of mobile phone data etc. 3.5 On 11.10.2023, when the applicant again turned up at the office of Sr. DEE, he was once again tortured for hours in order to extract a forced confession as to his complicity in the events at Tundla. The applicant continuously from 11.10.2023 till 19.10.2023 made report at Sr. DEE Office at 9:00 am and then kept standing at his door till 06:00 pm in the evening.
3.6 Accordingly, the applicant moved a representation on 19.10.2023 before DRM/NCR/Prayagraj narrating the actions of the Sr. DEE and with a request to join Tundla again and in view thereof, on the very same day, the applicant was directed to report at Tundla. Page 3 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 3.7 Since no action has been taken to this online FIR dated 11.10.2023 and the applicant, worried about his personal data being misused, again lodged an Online F.I.R. to Police Station, Civil Lines, Prayagraj on 19.10.2023, but both were rejected on frivolous grounds. 3.8 Upon reporting to Tundla on 20.10.2023, when the applicant PUNIT KUMAR was reported to duty, he was directed to received a letter purporting to MISHRA transfer handed a transfer order, posting him to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction, Chanduali (hereinafter referred as DDU) without indicating any reason therein. Since, the applicant‟s mother was seriously ill and needed immediate medical attention and was to be shown at Agra, the applicant showed his inability to move to DDU in such a short notice and further requested two days leave, which was sanctioned by the competent authority. He again sought extension of leave for five days, which was rejected by the concern respondent and started to mark him absent from work.
3.9 The applicant after returned from Agra to Tundla after getting his mother treatment, he was yet again served with an order dated 27.10.2023 stating therein "in compliance of order dated 19.10.2023 issued by the Sr. DEE/NCR/Prayagraj, the applicant was relieved from work and sent to DDU to work on loan basis where he shall report on 28.10.2023". However, no copy of the Sr. DEE‟s order dated 19.10.2023 referred to in the order dated 27.10.2023 was supplied to the applicant. On coming to know about the transfer order dated 27.10.2023, the applicant acted promptly and made an endorsement on the order in question requesting to be furnished with the transfer orders of the competent authority and further stating therein that he has not been served with the copy of the order dated 19.10.2023 which was referred in the letter of 27.10.2023.
Page 4 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 3.10 Pursuant to the applicant‟s request for issuance of letter of the competent authority, the order dated 19.10.2023 was replaced by the respondents to 03.11.2023 issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer (the competent authority for transfer of the applicant) which was again not served upon to the applicant and was not provided with the necessary duty pass for compliance of the said order. Aggrieved by the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA actions of the respondents, the applicant knocked the door of this tribunal by filing the instant original Application for quashing of the order of the 03.11.2023 as well as for interim relief.
4. Per-contra, the official respondents have negated the claims of the applicant by filing a short counter affidavit dated 23.05.2024 stating therein as under:-
4.1 There were enough evidences (directly or indirectly) proving that the applicant was involved in the incidence of 21.09.2023 and was physically present at the time when Shri Kaushal Kishore, Loco Inspector was manhandled and as such, proceeding against him under the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 has been initiated against him.
4.2 As per applicant, he was hospitalized but according to eye-
witness, he was physically present amongst the protestors raising slogans and moving out of Railway Hospital without permission is against Conduct of Rules 1966. The applicant was attached in the office of Sr. DEE (OP) at Prayagraj from 10.10.2023 to 19.10.2023 for ascertaining the facts of the incident occurred and was subsequently sent back to Tundla vide order dated 19.10.2023.
4.3 As the prime objective of the Railways is to run trains smoothly, hence as per need basis and urgency of the crew availability at particular lobby immediate transfers are made. The applicant along with Page 5 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 five employees was transferred to DDU on administrative requirement of train operation, which was deliberately refused by the applicant, pursuant to which order of 03.11.2023 was issued and also the competent officer can issue transfer orders of the employee on loan basis as per the operational requirement as per Railway Board‟s Model SOP 2018. PUNIT KUMAR 4.4 The applicant deliberately refused to accept the transfer MISHRA order, after which an administrative order had been issued on 03.11.2023. Due to the festive time, large number of employees applied for leave and as such, keeping in view of the train operation, his request for leave extension could not be extended. However, the applicant did not apply for extension of leave through proper channel.
4.5 The „Personnel‟ Branch issues transfer order as per direction of Senior DEE/OP, who is directly responsible for smooth and safe train operation. As per Railway Board‟s Model SOP, 2018., the Branch Officer is fully empowered to transfer any employee working under him on loan basis as and when necessity arises.
The transfer order issued from Personal Branch are duly made available on the HRMS module, which can be seen/downloaded by the officer concerned.
4.6 Apart from the applicant, other employees have also been transferred at different places in the interest of Railway Operations and not of any malicious intention. The transfer of the applicant has not been made as a punishment, it is issued only in the interest of Railway Operations.
5. Later on, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the official respondents on 29.05.2024, wherein it has been stated that after the incident, the applicant was attached in the office of Sr. DEE (OP) from 10.10.2023 to 19.10.2023 for ascertaining the facts. After Page 6 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 investigation, the applicant was sent back to Tundla. The applicant was transferred to DDU on administrative requirement of train operation as five more employees were transferred to DDU and other lobby along with him. The applicant has straight forwarded not accepted the transfer order, therefore, an administrative order dated 03.11.2023 was issued. PUNIT KUMAR
6. The respondent-4 has also filed a detailed counter affidavit MISHRA on 30.07.2024 in his personal capacity, denying the charges levelled against him by the applicant. The respondent-4 has stressed upon the two FIRs of the applicant, which were closed by the Police Department after investigation. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant is not abiding the orders of his Superiors at Tundla. He has against the Chief Loco Inspector Incharge at Tundla. The applicant challenged that Sr. DEE (Operation) being a Branch Officer has no any jurisdiction on the applicant, but the deponent is also posted as Sr. DEE (Operation ) and controlling Officer of the Loco Running Cadre of Prayagraj Division. In order to sustain an allegation of mala-fides, there should be exist sufficient evidence in this regard and merely alleging that respondent-4 has acted mala-fidely is not sufficient to sustain any such allegation on the basis of applicant‟s written complaint.
7. Rejoinder affidavit as well as supplementary rejoinder affidavit have also been filed from the side of the applicant on 05.07.2024 and 05.08.2024 respectively, wherein it has been stated as under:-
7.1 Since the respondents have already initiated a Departmental proceedings against the applicant in respect of the incident of which he alleged to have been part of, the applicant has been advised not to comment upon the same in the course of the present proceedings which are confined merely to the issue to his transfer, but instead meet the allegations suitably in the inquiry proceeding. The applicant has been Page 7 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 transferred by way of punishment on account of certain allegations of misconduct that has yet to be tested and/or substantiated in the Departmental proceeding drawn by the respondents. There is no order in existence to show that the applicant was ever officialy directed to be attached in the office of Sr. DEE (OP) from 10.10.2023 to 19.10.2023 and even shoddily drafted and illegally issued back-dated orders of PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA suspension and its revocation do not disclose that the applicant had been attached in the office of Sr. DEE (OP) at any point of time. 7.2. It is not correct that the applicant was transferred on administrative requirement along with five more employees as initially the applicant was also directed to move „on loan‟ to DDU vide letter dated 27.10.2023 issued by the Senior Crew Controller (Operation), NCR/Tundla in compliance of order dated 19.10.2023, which was stated to have been issued by the Sr. DEE (OP) vide Letter No.230/Elect./Operation/Allahabad/CAT/T &E) /On Loan, dated 19.10.2023. It was much later, and only after the realization that the applicant could not have been transferred by the Sr. DEE(OP), acting on his own, that the impugned transfer order dated 03.11.2023 was issued by the Personnel Department and this time, the applicant along with five employee was transferred from one place to another. 7.3 Even though the respondents have deliberately suppressed the aforesaid order dated 19.10.2023 and failed to bring on record, it can be easily demonstrated that the same had been issued as a knee-jerk reaction to a compliant dated 19.10.2023 made against the applicant by the Senior Crew Controller (Operation), NCR/Tundla to the Sr. DEE (OP)/NCR/Allahabad. The close nexus and proximity in time between the compliant dated 19.10.2023 made by Senior Crew Controller against the applicant and the order of transfer dated 19.10.2023 issued by the Sr. DEE (OP)/NCR Prayagraj is clinching proof that the applicant was Page 8 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 subjected to an instantaneous and punitive, albeit illegal, transfer on the basis of untested allegations of misconduct and complaint made against him by the Senior Crew Controller and the excuse that he was transferred on loan basis due to administrative requirement at DDU is only a fig-leaf to hide the punitive nature of his transfer.
PUNIT KUMAR 7.4 The respondents have failed to demonstrate that there was MISHRA any request made by the DDU or any other lobby for Loco Pilots due to shortage or drivers in those lobbies and that it was in fulfilment of that administrative exigency that the applicant, and five other had to be transferred from Tundla. Vide Notice dated 05.10.2023 issued in reference to Sr. DEE/OP/Prayagraj‟s letter dated 04.10.2023, applications were invited from the employees who were willing to go on transfer to work at DDU, Kanpur, CAR and KRJN Lobbies in response to which several Loco Pilots had submitted their application expressing their willingness to go on transfer to DDU Lobby, but the applicant had not given any such application at all. Despite the ready availability of such Loco Pilots, who had given their willingness to be transferred to DDU and other Lobbies, they were not transferred, whereas the applicant was transferred.
8. Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order of transfer on the following grounds:-
a) The impugned transfer order dated 03.11.2023 is mala-fide and have been passed in colourable exercise of power as a measure of punishment on unsubstantiated charges relating to an incident of protest involving large number of Loco Pilots of Tundla Lobby Admittedly, the impugned transfer order was issued on the basis of an undisclosed note dated 31.10.2023 issued by the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operating), North Central Railway, Page 9 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 Allahabad, who has also been impleaded by name as Respondent-
4 since specific and pointed allegations of malafide have been made against him, even said note is the basis of transfer, the same has been suppressed and not brought on record.
b) Initially, the applicant was sought to be transferred alone, vide a PUNIT KUMAR letter/order dated 19.10.2023 issued by the Senior Divisional MISHRA Electrical Engineer (Operating), North Central Railway, Prayagraj on alleged loan basis, to DDU, as a knee-jerk response to a complaint dated 19.10.2023 made by his Senior Crew Controller. But, the order dated 19.10.2023 issued by the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operating), has also been suppressed and deliberately not been brought on record, however, upon realizing that the applicant couldn't have been transferred by the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operating), acting on his own, a fresh order of temporary transfer, this time in respect of six Loco Pilots, all from Tundla, was passed on 03.11.2023 by the Personnel Department, based on a note of the Sr. D.E.E. whose contents remains undisclosed.
c) There is malafides on the part of Respondent-4, who tortured and humiliation inflicted upon the applicant and also to force him to somehow confess to having played a prominent role in the Loco Pilots' protests at Tundla and when that failed, the applicant was suspended through forged, fabricated and backdated order of suspension and then transferred as a measure of punishment.
d) Applicant's continued torture and humiliation at the hands of Respondent No. 4, when he was unauthorisedly detained by him for 10 days straight at Prayagraj and made to stand outside his office from morning till evening, has been sought to be explained by Page 10 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 the respondents by casually describing it as "attachment", but, no order of such attachment could be produced by them before this court.
e) Prior to the passing of the impugned transfer order dated 03.11.2023, the applicant was also slapped with a major penalty PUNIT KUMAR charge memorandum charging him with the misconduct of inciting MISHRA loco pilots against the Railway administration. Details of the scandalously illegal suspension of the applicant and its revocation, both, on the same day, and with retrospective effect.
f) Malafides and patent illegality in transferring the applicant as a measure of punishment are also evident from the fact that he was sought to be transferred despite the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him, even though it is well known that as per rules, practice and procedure in place, a person facing a disciplinary inquiry is not liable to be transferred.
g) The applicant was transferred temporarily to DDU due to administrative need and in exigency of service is falsified as the impugned order of temporary transfer from Tundla to DDU does not mention any duration of transfer, unlike all the other transfer orders, which the official respondents have annexed and cited in support of this plea and no indent or request from DDU asking for Loco Pilots from other lobbies has been brought on record to show that there was any shortage of Loco Pilots at DDU which needed to be met by getting Loco Pilots from other lobbies.
h) There was already a long list of Loco Pilots, who had applied for, and expressed their willingness to go to DDU on transfer in response to a Notification asking for such options, and even though the applicant was not amongst those who had expressed such Page 11 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 willingness, he was transferred to DDU whereas those who had specifically opted to go to DDU were not transferred.
i) Lastly, the impugned transfer order, qua the applicant, has not been passed either in public interest or in any exigency of service or even in furtherance of any administrative need or requirement; PUNIT KUMAR instead, the same has been passed malafide, in colourable MISHRA exercise of power. For all these reasons and grounds, the impugned transfer order, insofar as it relates to the applicant, stands badly vitiated in law.
j) In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the following judgments:-
i. Dr. Fakhre Alam Vs. Union of India passed in Original Application No.85/2024 by CAT Allahabad Bench. ii. Sanjay Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P. in Writ Petition No.21175/2019 passed by High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur iii. Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592
9. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-4 vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted as under:-
a) The present Original Application has been filed against the Transfer Order dated 03.11.2023, by which applicant alongwith 5 other employee has been temporarily transferred on exigency of service on administrative grounds.
b) The Transfer Order dated 03.11.2023 in neither punitive nor malafide, but, only an administrative ground and smooth operation of trains.Page 12 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024
c) The Transfer Order dated 03.11.2023 has been passed by the competent authority.
d) The only ground taken by the applicant is malafide against the respondent-4 Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, but, no averment has ever been made in any paragraph of the Original Application PUNIT KUMAR against the respondent-4 (Sri Pradeep Kumar Sharma).
MISHRA
e) The impugned Transfer Order dated 03.11.2023 has been passed by the office of respondent- 2 and not by respondent nos. 3 or 4.
f) In paragraph no. 4.7 to 4.8 to the Original Application made certain allegations against the respondent-3, who is discharging his official duty in smooth operation of the Trains.
g) It is settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and employee can be transferred from one place to another place on administrative ground and in present case applicant is Assistant Loco Pilot under safety category and as such he may be transferred to another place on exigency of service..
h) The Judicial Review in inference of malafide must be based on firm foundation of facts pleaded and established and not merely insinuations and vague allegations.
i) In present case also merely lodging an online complaint/FIR against the respondent- 4 may not be foundation for malafide. The FIR has already been rejected by the Police Department after investigation. The Transfer Order has not been issued by respondent- 4, but, issued by the office of respondent- 2, against whom no malafide is alleged.
j) In support of his contention, learned counsels for the respondents placed following judgments:-
Page 13 of 18OA No. 62 of 2024
i. The Apex Court in the matter of E.P. Royppa Vs State of Tamilnadu (1974)4 SSC-3 ii. In the matter of Rajendra Roy Vs Union of India (1993)1 SCC-148.
iii. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnish Khajuriya Vs Wockhard Ltd reported in (2020)3 SCC-86.
10. I have considered the submissions so raised by the learned PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA counsel for the parties and perused the records.
11. The impugned transfer order dated 03.11.2023 indicates that the applicant and 5 others employees working under the respondent Department were transferred from one place to another place temporarily and therefore; it is a chain transfer. For better appreciation of the matter, the transfer order is quoted as under:-
Sr. Name/ HRMS Sub Existing Particular Revised Particular Remark No. ID/Employee Type/ s No./Community Department/Designation Department/Designation W.E.F. Zone/ Division/ Zone/ Division/ Station/Office/Section BU Station/Office/Section BU Pay Level Basic Pay Pay Level Basic Pay 1 SHASHI KANT Transfe ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL DUBEY JUJBKW r within /ASSISTANT LOCO /ASSISTANT LOCO 33229814157/GEN same PILOT (ELECTRICAL) PILOT (ELECTRICAL) Unit NCR/ALDD/TDL/SR NCR/ALDD/PCOI/SR CC/OP/NCR/TDL 3202107 CC/OP/NCR/PCOI NA 2/21700 2/21700
2. Devendra Pratap Transfe ELECTRICAL/ ELECTRICAL/ Singh/GSSMIS/332 r within ASSISTANT LOCO PILOT ASSISTANT LOCO PILOT 29817833/OBC same (ELECTRICAL) (ELECTRICAL) Unit NCR/ALDD/TDL/SR NCR/ALDD/DDU/SR CC/ELECT/OP/TDL CC/ELECT/OP/DDU NA 3202106 2/19900 2/19900
3. Gaurav XXX XXX XXX Kumar/YCEKQI/06 529805009/GEN 4 Umesh XXX XXX XXX Kumar/LDGJKA/33 22981664/OBC
5. Mohit XXX XXX XXX Tyagi/GTMGGM/06 529804449/Gen
6. Ashok Kumar XXX XXX XXX Chauhan/JBTKSB/ 33229816700/OBC Note:-Page 14 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024
1.. As per Master Circular 6, para 2.2 Joining Time is not admissible to a Railway servant for temporary transfer. Only actual transit time as admissible in the case of journey on tour will be allowed.
1102 of IREC Vol. I and Letter No.E(G)83 JT1/1 dated 26.11.1983).
2. As per Master Circular 24, para 3.1 Frequent transfer of Railway employees should not be resorted to. Wherever the transfer of a Railway employee is temporary, the same should be mentioned in the transfer order.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Board's letter No.E(NG)I-81/TR/19 dated 23.05.81) Sub Para 2 of Para I of Rule 1643 (B)(3) of Ch. 16 of IREC Vol II, Composite Transfer Grant will be admissible to those of a temporary transfer.
12. It is well settled transfer is an incident of service, no right has accrued to an employee to stay at a particular place. In the present case, the learned counsel for the applicant taken a specific plea that the impugned order of transfer has been passed in colourable exercise of power of the respondents, but from perusal of the transfer order, it appears that same has been passed in exigencies of services as not only the applicant, five other persons were transferred from one place to other place and therefore, transfer order cannot be termed as passed in colourable exercise of power.
13. So far as mala-fide levelled against the respondent-4 in the several paragraphs especially in para 4.7 to 4.10 of the Original Application, the applicant himself lodged an online First Information Report at Police Station Civil Lines, Prayagraj on 11.10.2023 in respect of alleged incident and also again on 19.10.2023, second online First Information Report, but both the FIRs were closed after the investigation of the concerned Police Officials and the applicant has not pursued further any action against the rejection of both the FIRs, therefore no mala-fides on the part of the respondent-4 as alleged in the Original Application has been proved.
Page 15 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024
14. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that Note dated 31.10.2023 on the basis of which, the impugned transfer order has been passed is not brought on record by the respondents in spite of direction of Tribunal, since the impugned transfer has been passed by the Competent Authority, transferring the applicant temporarily and others employees also, it is not at all necessary to PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA produce the same before this Tribunal.
15. With regard to initiation of departmental proceedings against the applicant are concerned, no relief has been made in the instant Original application with regard to such departmental proceeding.
16. Although the transfer order has been issued on administrative/temporary exigencies, but from perusal of the record, it appears that Standard Form-5 was issued against the applicant on 09.10.2023 for charges levelled against him and thereafter, charge Memo was also issued on 19.10.2023/28.10.2023, but the same is not under challenge in this Original Application.
17. Further, the Courts/Tribunal should not interfere with a transfer/posting order, which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons. The posting order of the applicant is not made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafidly. Posting /transfer order issued by the Competent Authority does not violate any of legal rights of the employees.
18. The identical issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592, wherein it has been held as under:-
16. 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 Page 16 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds--one malice in fact and the second malice in law. 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 PUNIT KUMAR aside being wholly illegal.
MISHRA
19. In Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration."
20. The applicant has been transferred in the same organization and therefore, has suffered no set back in his career. The applicant is a member of Indian Railways and holds a transferable post and since transfer otherwise is an incidence of service as such no interference is called for with such transfer of the applicant. It is the prerogative of the Department to decide transfer and posting of the employees. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are no help to applicant.
21. In view of the foregoing discussions, it appears that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of transfer as well as consequential orders. Hence, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
22. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant has not joined Page 17 of 18 OA No. 62 of 2024 the transferred place till date though there is no interim order in his favour, he is at liberty to join the transferred place, within a period of 10 days from today, which shall be accepted by the respondents, in accordance with law.
23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
PUNIT KUMAR 24. Pending Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. MISHRA
25. No order as to cost.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Judicial) PM/ Page 18 of 18