Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dr Rajendra Ramesh Karpate vs Union Of India on 28 November, 2025
1
OA No. 562/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai
Camp at Nagpur
Original Application No. 562/2025
Order reserved on: 16.10.2025
Order pronounced on: 28.11.2025
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Dr. Rajendra Ramesh Karpate Aged about 57 years, Occ:
Deputy Agriculture Marketing Advisor R/o Flat No.A-3, 24
HIG Agrasen Marg, Giripeth, Nagpur-440010. Email:
[email protected] Mob. No.: 7011200998
....Applicant
(By Adv: Shri M.M. Sudame, Sr. Advocate with Shri Fidvi )
Versus
1. Union of India Through Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare
Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers'
Welfare, Agriculture Marketing Division, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001.
[email protected]
2. The Joint Secretary (Marketing) cum Agriculture
Marketing Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers'
Welfare, Directorate of Marketing and instruction, Head
Office at NH - 4 Block A CGO Complex, Faridabad
Haryana-12100
Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30'
[email protected]
2
OA No. 562/2025
3. The Under Secretary Government of India Ministry of
Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Department of
Agriculture and Farmers, Welfare Directorate of
Marketing and Inspection Head Office Faridabad -121001
[email protected]
4. Director (Administration), Department of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare Directorate of Marketing and Inspection
Head Office Faridabad - 121001
[email protected]
5. Assistant Agriculture Marketing Advisor, Head of Office,
Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, New Secretariat
Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Mob No.
9415388566 Email: [email protected]
6. Sahdev Singh, Department of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare Directorate of Marketing and Inspection Head
Office Faridabad - 121001
.... Respondents
(By Adv: Shri Bhaskar D. Pandit for official respondents
Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar for Pvt. Respondent
No. 6 )
ORDER
Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Acts, 1985 challenging the order of transfer dated Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA 30.06.2025 issued by respondent No.4 whereby the Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' applicant has been transferred from BHO, Nagpur to RO, 3 OA No. 562/2025 Mumbai. Further, the applicant is challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 pursuant to directions issued by this Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 525/2025.
2. The brief facts as stated by applicant in the Original Application are that the applicant is currently serving at BHO, Nagpur as Deputy Agriculture Marketing Advisor. Throughout his service with the respondent the applicant has constantly been transferred. Initially the applicant at the time of his appointment was posted at Mumbai, from 1998 to 2000. Thereafter the applicant was posted from 2000 to 2003 at Kolkata. The applicant was thereafter again transferred from Kolkata to Jaipur from 2003 to 2006. Then again, the applicant was transferred from Jaipur to Nagpur from 2007 to 2012. The applicant thereafter was transferred from 2012 to 2015 at Hyderabad. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred from 2015 to 2017 to Delhi. Thereafter the applicant was transferred to Faridabad from 2017 to 2022. In the meantime, again the applicant was given additional Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' charge from 2020 to 2021 at Kolkata. Finally, the applicant 4 OA No. 562/2025 was transferred to Nagpur in July 2022 at Nagpur and is currently posted at Nagpur.
3. It is submitted that the parents of the applicant are residents of Nagpur. On account of ill health of the father of the applicant, the applicant on several occasions requested for posting at Nagpur. The father of applicant was diagnosed with cancer and ultimately lost his battle to cancer and passed away. Even at that time when a request was made by the applicant the same was not entertained. Thereafter the mother of applicant aged 78 also had to undergo surgery on account of suspected cancer growth and consequently her uterus had to be removed.
4. On account of circular issued by the respondents prior to initiation of Rotational Transfers, the applicant submitted his Proforma. The applicant pointed all the difficulties being faced by him and his request to be continued at Nagpur. However, there was no response from the respondents to any representation. The applicant further in option form filled out primary consideration of retention as In-charge BHO, Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' Nagpur thereafter In-charge CAL, Nagpur and at last Mumbai. The applicant thereafter made a representation 5 OA No. 562/2025 through proper channel on 01.04.2025 seeking retention at Nagpur. The applicant in detail furnished all the details and reasoning pointing out that the applicant had only 2 years and 5 months of service left and the applicant was due for retirement in January, 2028.
5. It is stated that, aggrieved by continues non- consideration of claim of the applicant, he again made a representation on 02.06.2025 pointing out that, as per DOPT O.M. dated 02.02.2024, any government employee, who is the caregiver of dependent daughter, son, parent, spouse, brother, sister, with specific disability certified by certifying authority may be exempted from transfer. It is stated that, the mother of the applicant is a disabled person and disability certificate of mother is placed on record.
6. It is submitted that the transfer policy of the respondents in so far as the post of the applicant is concerned reflects that it is either in sensitive place or non- sensitive. Needless to mention that the powers delegated upon the applicant and any person holding similar post have been withdrawn and handed over to the Head of Department Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' vide order dated 13.05.2022 i.e. delegation of financial powers.
6OA No. 562/2025
7. It is further submitted that when the applicant sought information under the Right to Information Act, as to whether any person posted in Sensitive area i.e. DMI BHO Nagpur as Deputy AMA had been transferred on completion of tenure. It was responded that since 2010-2025 no Deputy AMA BHO Nagpur has been transferred from sensitive post on completion of tenure. As such when other employees have been accommodated against the said post, it is arbitrary on the part of the respondents to not consider the genuine claim of the applicant.
8. Further, it is mentioned that the daughter of the applicant is currently in her final year of B.Tech. and is taking education in Nagpur. The studies of the daughter of the applicant would be severely hampered, if the applicant is transferred during such period. Furthermore, the applicant being on the verge of retirement started building his home which will fall at an abrupt halt. Despite all the circumstances being faced by the applicant, the respondents on 30.06.2025 issued the impugned transfer order. The Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' applicant made another representation stating that in view of the difficulties being faced by him, the applicant ought to 7 OA No. 562/2025 be retained at Nagpur BHO or Central Agmark Laboratory hereinafter referred to as CAL), Nagpur for which he earlier held additional charge.
9. It is further submitted that the department issues a list of sensitive postings for each year in the month of March. As per the list issued in 2024, the post of Deputy AMA at BHO Nagpur was marked sensitive which is valid for 1 year. However, as per the Office Memorandum dated 05.03.2025 BHO, Nagpur has been removed from Sensitive posting. As such when the issue regarding BHO Nagpur being sensitive or not is well within the knowledge of the respondents, the same could not have been resorted to by the respondents to reject the claim of the applicant. Furthermore, the list of Marketing Cadre Officers who are due for transfer after completing their maximum tenure is attached with the Office Memorandum. The list itself discloses the arbitrariness of the respondents considering the fact that several officers holding sensitive posts have not been transferred and continue to hold sensitive posts even after completion of Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' their maximum tenure. To name a few officers who have not been transferred are Dr. Jaiveer Singh, A.G. Surwase, 8 OA No. 562/2025 Rishikesh Meena, Deepak Kumar Sharma, Ashok Yadav, Saurabh Kumar etc.
10. The applicant further submitted that it is necessary to bring on record that the respondent No. 6, Shri Sahdev Singh holds personal grudge against the applicant and has on various occasions threatened him with consequences of transfer and also demanded money from him if the applicant wished not to be transferred. Further, the applicant also was forced to pay personal bills of Sahdev Singh on his command and thereafter on several occasions the respondent no.4 also demanded money from the applicant. The applicant was repeatedly harassed on this count to an extent unbearable by him. Aggrieved by the same the applicant was constrained to lodge a complaint against the respondent No. 4 to the Agricultural Marketing Advisor, DMI. vide complaint dated 05.05.2025. the applicant pointed out how the respondent no.4 had been harassing the applicant and demanded money from him if he wished to continue at Nagpur.
11. It is also submitted that the malafide on the part of Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' respondent no.4 is evident from the fact that a complaint 9 OA No. 562/2025 was made by Shri Rajesh Bharaji Dokimare against Shri Gulab Chand, SSO for false claiming of transfer allowance from Faridabad to Nagpur. Apart from the above other such transfer bills were also raised by him which when prima facie found to be false were placed before a committee. Needless to mention that the BHO Nagpur Incharge i.e. the applicant then forwarded the complaint and it was revealed that H.O. Administration which is headed by Director Administration i.e. Respondent No.6, Shri Sahdev Singh was the enabler for Gulab Chand and was attempting to protect him from the allegations made in the complaint. The Applicant being Incharge BHO, Nagpur thereafter submitted his report involving allegations against Shri Sahdev Singh to the Vigilance Cell for further action. However, the report was not acted upon and instead were placed before Sahdev Singh to be a judge of his own cause.
12. It is submitted that the dispute between the respondent no.4 who keeps his higher authority in the dark has been ongoing since December 2024. The respondent no.4 in fact Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' passed the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 by keeping the Higher Authorities in dark and concealing the true and 10 OA No. 562/2025 correct facts from them. The respondent no.4 has personal grudge against the applicant and has corrupt practices of transferring started employees as per his whims and wishes. It is pertinent to point out that the order of transfer issued by the respondents is rotational in nature and does not reflect any administrative exigencies. Furthermore, where there is a DoPT OM issued to further such relief to employees having dependent family members the respondents without considering the same have transferred the applicant. The entire conduct of the respondents reeks of malafide.
13. It is submitted that against the transfer order dated 30.06.2025, O.A. No. 524/2025 was filed before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 02.07.2025 with the direction to consider the representation of the applicant. However, merely for sake of compliance, the respondents passed the speaking order dated 10.07.2025, on the representation of, without there being any reasons and taking contrary stand that there were administrative exigencies.
14. The impugned transfer order is challenged on the Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' ground that the same is contrary to policy and the same is 11 OA No. 562/2025 passed with Malafide. The applicant has also impleaded Respondent No. 6 in a private capacity, as malafide is alleged against the said Respondent. Therefore, on the basis of facts and circumstances mentioned in the Original Application, the applicant has prayed for quashment of these two orders.
15. After notice, the official respondents have filed a reply and contested the Original Application. It is submitted that the Applicant was appointed as Jr. Chemist w.e.f. 07.10.1992 & posted at Regional Agmark Laboratory (RAL), Mumbai. He was transferred to Central Agmark Laboratory (CAL), Nagpur 01.07.1994 and posted at there till 23.10.1998-04 Yrs. & 04 months. He was then appointed as Marketing Officer w.e.f. 28.10.1998 at Regional Office (RO), Mumbai. He joined as Junior Scientific Officer(Biology) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta on 12.03.2001. The Applicant again joined DMI on 05.03.2003 due to termination of services as Junior Scientific Officer(Biology) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta on 29.01.2003, as the applicant had not Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' successfully completed his probation period. Thereafter, he joined CAL Nagpur as MO on 11.07.2005 till 17.07.2006 and 12 OA No. 562/2025 posted to BHO, Nagpur w.e.f. 18.07.2006 and remained their till 31.01.2012-06 years 05 months. The applicant was appointed as Deputy Agricultural Marketing Advisor(Dy. AMA) w.e.f. 01.02.2012-RO, Hyderabad. Again, his current posting at BHO, Nagpur, from 27.06.2022 till 11.07.2025 for 03 Years is as per his first choice of posting as given by him on 02.05.2022.
16. The respondents further submitted that after being relieved from DMI, BHO, Nagpur on 11.07.2025, the applicant is working from DMI, BHO, Nagpur as per the directions given by the Hon'ble CAT, Mumbai, dated 16.07.2025, that the "Respondents shall not insist on joining the applicant at his transferred place till next date." From the above facts, it is clear that he has been posted for about 14 years at Nagpur (BHO/CAL), which is also his hometown as per his service records, in various capacities during his service.
17. It is further submitted that the present posting of Dr. R. R. Karpeti at BHO Nagpur was done as per his first choice given by his application, first choice given by his field option Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' 13 OA No. 562/2025 proforma dated 02.05.2022, wherein he has given his preference of posting at BHO Nagpur.
18. It is further submitted that the contention of the applicant that there was no response from the respondents to any representation on his request is wrong and thus again fully denied. The applicant has requested to retain him at Nagpur, in his representation dated 19.03.2025 and the reply to his representation was conveyed vide DMI, Head Office, Faridabad's OM No. 19023/3/2012-A.I dated 01.04.2025 and again the applicant is represented on 01.04.2025 and 02.06.2025 for his retention at BHO, Nagpur and all these representations were considered by the RTP Board, since all these representations were for the retention purpose and no reply was needed to be given as this subject was to be decided in the RTP Board's meeting; hence, it was placed before the RTP Board and the Board has unanimously decided to transfer the applicant in public interest and also as per the norms given under the RTP. Consequent upon his transfer order, the applicant again Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' represented on 30.06.2025 for his retention and again his representation was also considered and with the approval of 14 OA No. 562/2025 Joint Secretary(M)-cum-Agricultural Marketing Adviser, a reasoned Speaking Order in this connection was also issued on 10.07.2025 abiding Hon'ble CAT's Oral Order dated 02.07.2025.
19. It is further stated that the contention of the applicant is absolutely wrong that he was aggrieved by continued non- consideration of his request to consider him for the retention at Nagpur and not transfer him under the RTP. It is stated that the matter comes under the purview of RTP Board. His representation was placed in the RTP Board meeting. Thus, there is no substance in his claim for non- consideration of his request prior to convening of RTP meeting. However, vide applicant's representation dated 02.06.2025 in which several reasons are mentioned including the reason that his mother Smt. Veena Ramesh Karpate is of advanced age and has been suffering from Bilateral Osteoarthritis Knee and she has acquired Locomotor disability. In this representation, the temporary locomotor disability certificate dated 31.05.2025 which is valid upto 29.05.2026 was also Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' attached and requested vide DOPT OM No.36035/44/2023- Estt. (Res.II) dated 02.02.2024 to exempt him from routine 15 OA No. 562/2025 exercise of transfer/rotational transfer. The representation was also considered by the Competent Authority in light of the DoPT OM dated 02.02.2024, but could not be acceded to, subject to the administrative constraints/exigencies as mentioned in the said DoPT's OM itself. As there are a total of 13 sanctioned posts of Dy.AMA in DMI, but as of date, only 10 posts of Dy.AMA has been filled and due to matching-saving, it becomes administratively constrained to consider every officer's first choice of preference. Further, he has been transferred to RO, Mumbai, based on his own choice of posting in the RTP option proforma.
20. Respondents further submitted that the contention of the applicant is that from 2010 to 2025 that no Dy. AMA, BHO, Nagpur has been transferred from sensitive posts on completion of tenure is misleading. The statement intends to mislead the Hon'ble CAT by twisting the facts. RTP Policy was itself introduced on 23.07.2015 by the Marketing Division, Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. Thus, the question of the transfer of Dy. AMA, BHO, Nagpur, Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' before 23.07.2015, from sensitive posts on completion of tenure does not arise. Further, Shri C. R. Jena was posted 16 OA No. 562/2025 as Dy. AMA, BHO, Nagpur on 21.07.2014, and he retired on superannuation on 31.03.2019 from BHO, Nagpur, and thus, on his completion of 3 years as Dy AMA, BHO, Nagpur, he has less than 2 years left on his superannuation date. Which implies that on completion of his tenure on the sensitive posts he was exempted from transfer as per para 10 (a) of RTP policy dated 23.07.2015.
21. It is submitted that consequent upon his transfer order dated 30.06.2025, the applicant again represented on 30.06.2025 for his retention and again his representation was considered and with the approval of Joint Secretary(M)- cum-Agricultural Marketing Adviser, a reasoned Speaking Order in this connection was also issued on 10.07.2025 abiding Hon'ble CAT's directions dated 02.07.2025. However, it is informed that the post of Director of Laboratories is a single Cadre Post. However, due to a shortage of Dy. AMAs in the DMI, the Director of Laboratories is also looking after the Charge of Dy.AMA in DMI, Head Office, Faridabad. Hence, it is also informed that Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' there is no post of Dy. AMA at CAL, Nagpur.
17OA No. 562/2025
22. It is further submitted that the work relating to changing the status of a sensitive post to a non-sensitive post is dealt in the Administrative Vigilance Unit(AVU), Department of Agriculture & FW, New Delhi, and the Vigilance Section, DMI, Faridabad. Further, nowhere in such orders about the validity of 01 year is mentioned, and unless an updated list of sensitive posts/stations is provided by AVU, DA&FW, the prevalent list remains valid. Presently, as per the existing Administrative Vigilance Unit(AVU), DA&FW's OM No.31015/05/2023-AVU dated 08.03.2024, which is referred to in paragraph 1, through which certain posts of BHO, Nagpur, were declared as Sensitive posts. The communication at 14.03.2024 from the Under Secretary to the Government of India to the Agriculture Marketing Advisory, Faridabad. The sensitive posts declared in the BHO, Nagpur vide the above OM are given as under:-
(i) Dy.AMA in-charge, BHO, Nagpur;
(ii) Under Secretary, BHO;
(iii) Section officer (Vigilance);
(iv) Section officer (Establishment-dealing with
Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30'
transfer);
(v) Section Officer and dealing Assistants dealing
with procurement of stores etc. and
18
OA No. 562/2025
(vi) Caretaker.
23. It further stated that other than the above posts, all other posts and sections in BHO, Nagpur, are in the Non- sensitive category. Hence, at Sl. No. 3 of the list of officers enclosed with the OM dated 05.03.2025, which is annexed as (Annexure R-22), the name of the applicant reflects against the Sensitive Post. However, in the case of Sh. Mukesh Gour, being Marketing Officer and in the aforesaid OM of AVU dated 08.03.2024 (Annexure R-21), the post of Marketing Officer was not declared as a sensitive post, as he was dealing with the matters of training. Hence, the name of Sh. Gour was reflected against the Non-sensitive Post. Therefore, in the case of Sh. Mukesh Gour, the officer, was posted/working at BHO, Nagpur against a Non-sensitive post. Since the post of the applicant is Dy.AMA, BHO, Nagpur is sensitive and Sh. Gour as Marketing Officer is non-sensitive, hence, both are not the same. Also, as per Paragraph 17 at page No. 9 of RTP, "the transfer/posting can be made in the exigencies of work or on administrative Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' grounds or for administrative Transfer/postings can be made disregarding any one or more of the provisions made 19 OA No. 562/2025 in the RTP. This policy offers only general guidelines to the competent authority and does not constitute rules. It also does not, in any manner, restrict the powers of competent authority to take decision with regard to postings of the personnel." Hence, the transfer of the applicant is fully in accordance with the provisions of the RTP and also with the unanimously recommendations of General Central Service Board (which often called as RTP Board). Also, it is evidently clear that there is no violation of any provisions of RTP. In this matter, Board has also decided to retain some of the officers, who have even completed maximum tenure due to administrative exigencies and also shortage of the manpower and purely on administrative grounds. Some of the officers were assigned with important tasks at their present place of postings and also for smooth functioning of DMI Offices, as well.
24. Respondents further contends that it is to inform that vide DMI, HO, Faridabad's Office Order No.48/2025 dated 30.06.2025, the applicant was transferred along with 26 Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' other Officers of Marketing Cadre under RTP provisions. However, based on Hon'ble CAT's direction dated 20 OA No. 562/2025 16.07.2025 in OA No.562/2025, that " the applicant is not insist on joining the applicant at his transferred place." Hence, even after relieving the Applicant, the Applicant has not been transferred to RO, Mumbai, and thus Dr. Anil Kumar R, Dy. AMA could not join BHO, Nagpur and therefore he was asked to work from this previous place of posting i.e. RO, Kochi till further directions of Hon'ble CAT vide DMI, HO, Faridabad's OM dated 24.07.2025 which issued with the approval of Competent Authority i.e. Joint Secretary(M)-cum- Agricultural Marketing Adviser. Since, there is only one post of Dy.AMA at BHO, Nagpur, hence, the officer viz. Sh. Anil Kumar R, Dy.AMA could not join in place of the applicant at BHO, Nagpur, in spite of his relieving from RO, Kochi.
25. The respondents further have submitted that it is also informed that vide HO, Faridabad's OM dated 10.07.2025 and with the approval of the Competent Authority, i.e. Joint Secretary(M)-cum-Agricultural Marketing Adviser, Sh. B.K. Joshi, Dy. AMA has been relieved from RO, Mumbai on Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' 11.07.2025 and is currently looking after the work of RO, Lucknow in online mode as Sh. Joshi is injured due to an 21 OA No. 562/2025 accident and has been advised to rest by his treating doctor. Hence, the post of Dy. AMA, RO, Mumbai is presently vacant.
26. It is submitted that OA No.524/2025 was filed in CAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai by the applicant and on 02.07.2025 an Oral Order was passed by the Hon'ble CAT Bench directing Respondent No. 2 i.e. Joint Secretary(M)- cum- Agricultural Marketing Adviser, DMI to consider the pending representations including representation dated 01.07.2025 by or before 10.07.2025 by passing a reasoned and Speaking Order keeping in view of OM/guidelines on the subject and the same shall be communicated to the applicant.
27. On the basis of reply, the official respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application. Private respondent No. 6 have also filed separate reply denying and contesting the allegation of malafide.
28. Respondent No. 6 filed separate reply and denied that he has any personal grudge against the Applicant. It is further specifically denied that this Respondent has ever Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' threatened much less on various occasions with 22 OA No. 562/2025 consequence of transfer. It is not only false but also highly defamatory on the part of the Applicant to allege that this Respondent demanded money from him for not transferring him. The Respondent further specifically denies that the Applicant was ever forced to pay his personal bills as alleged. The Respondent further states that while dealing matter with the Applicant, he has discharged his duties always acted strictly in accordance with the existing rules, regulations and policies, etc. It is important to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal that General Central Services Board comprises of five members of which this Respondent was also one of the members. The said Board works under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary-Cum-Agricultural Marketing Advisor to the Government of India and all the decisions about transfer/posting are only taken collectively by the said Board and not individually by him.
29. Respondent No. 6 further submitted that it is also important to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal that on the contrary, on multiple occasion, Dr. Karpate Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' himself requested Respondent for "approaching the higher authorities to clear him pending cases, including the Gramin 23 OA No. 562/2025 Bhandaran Yojana (GBY) & Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Grading and Standardization (AMIGS) now subsumed into Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure (AMD) Scheme" (in which the inquiry file is pending with the higher authorities for deciding the penalty against Dr. Karpate and Shri Manoj Kumar, Dy AMAs), adding that "we will manage." Each time, the Respondent told him clearly that the file is with competent authority and that nothing is in his hands. Despite this, Dr. Karpate repeatedly pressurized the Respondent, during meetings and over phone calls, to "convince the authorities whatever you want, we will manage- but our case should be cleared as his retirement is approaching and the case is pending for long." Apart from that this Respondent states that he himself has been threatened by the Applicant. The Respondent had also received from other staff members about threats received from the Applicant. The Respondent has also received communications from other about the pressure being exerted by Applicant over them.
Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30'
30. It is submitted by the private respondent that he has always acted bonafidely and in the larger interests of the 24 OA No. 562/2025 organization without any ill-will or hatred against any of the employee much less the Applicant herein. It is further stated that Shri Gulab Chand was recently promoted from Junior Statistical Officer (JSO) to Senior Statistical Officer (SSO). Due to an acute shortage of administrative/account staff at DMI HO, Faridabad, his services were taken temporarily/on loan basis (divert capacity) from BHO, Nagpur to DMI HO, Faridabad after obtaining the approval of the then Additional Secretary (Marketing)-Cum-Agricultural Marketing Advisor. At the time of his promotion, Shri Gulab Chand was retained in DMI HO, Faridabad only after the approval of the Competent Authority i.e. the then Additional Secretary (Marketing)-Cum- Agricultural Marketing Advisor. It is also informed that the then Additional Secretary (Marketing)- Cum- Agricultural Marketing Advisor had also personally spoken to Joint Secretary (Administration), Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation and requested for retention of Sh. Gulab Chand, SSO at DMI HO, Faridabad on the grounds of administrative need. Shri Gulab Chand has been serving in DMI HO, Faridabad since his initial Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' joining in 2015 as Junior Statistical Officer (JSO), hence he 25 OA No. 562/2025 is well-versed with the working culture of DMI HO, Faridabad and is also involved in critical assignments including Account Section/DDO work, NIC coordination, GeM Portal, and e-office, etc. Although, the posting of Sh. Gulab was officially shown under BHO, Nagpur due to the absence of vacancy of SSO in DMI, HO, Faridabad at the time of his promotion, hence, his services were specifically retained at DMI, HO, Faridabad. Presently, SSO, Shri Gulab Chand's mother undergoing cancer treatment in Faridabad, further necessitating his stay. Despite these genuine reasons, Dr. Karpate has repeatedly exerted pressures and made various excuses to have Shri Gulab Chand report back to BHO, Nagpur, even without the approval of the DMI HO, Faridabad. He has also harassed Shri Gulab Chand unnecessarily and addressed unwarranted communications to his parent cadre, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, even without the approval of the DMI HO, Faridabad. Further, in this matter, it is also necessary to inform the Hon. Tribunal that vide Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation letter dated 26-08-2025, Sh. Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' Gulab Chand, Senior Statistical Officer has now been 26 OA No. 562/2025 transferred to NSSO, Chennai with the request to relieve the officers within 45 days of issuance of this order. But on the same day Sh. Gulab Chand, SSO was relieved by Dr. Karpate from DMI, BHO, Nagpur and that too without the prior approval of Joint Secretary (Marketing)-Cum-Agricultural Marketing Advisor.
31. Respondent No. 6 further submitted that he has always taken decisions in consultations with members of General Central Services Board and it is again falsely alleged that higher authorities were kept in dark. It is to bring to kind notice that reasoned speaking order dated 10.07.2025 was issued only after the approval from the competent authority i.e. Joint Secretary (Marketing)- Cum-Agricultural Marketing Advisor to the Government of India, who chairs the General Central Services Board. At the cost of repetition, it is again submitted that the decision of transfer the applicant has been taken collectively and involvement of any personal grudge or malice was and is never there. The Applicant, so as to mislead this Hon'ble Court has made an Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' attempt to level allegations against the Respondent, which are not only prima facie frivolous but also defamatory in the 27 OA No. 562/2025 nature. Thus, the no case is made out against this Respondent. It is further submitted that the Original Application lacks merits and needs no consideration.
32. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the applicant explaining and elaborating the facts. Further a copy of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 to substantiate that his transfer is malafide one. Further, rejoinder to reply filed by respondent No. 6 was also filed by the applicant.
33. The official respondents and private respondent have also filed sur-rejoinder to the rejoinders filed by the applicant reiterating and elaborating their stand.
34. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
35. Shri M.M. Sudame, Sr. Advocate with Shri Fidvi, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025, so far it relates Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' to the applicant is concerned, it is arbitrary and contrary to 28 OA No. 562/2025 policy. Clause 8 of the RTP provide for minimum and maximum tenure for the different posts.
36. It is further submitted that on the present place of posting he has not completed the minimum tenure of the posting as per the aforesaid guidelines and therefore transfer is contrary to the guidelines. Further reliance has been placed upon OM dated 02.02.2024 on the subject of guidelines for providing exemption from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer in respect of government employee, is a caregiver of person with disability dependence. It is submitted that the applicant's mother falls within the same category and therefore the respondents were obliged to consider the same and therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed. The disability certificate of mother of the applicant is annexed with the OA as Annexure-A/8.
37. By elaborating his submissions in respect of malafide against the respondent No. 6, learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the Original Application. It is further Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' submitted that in earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal 29 OA No. 562/2025 was pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. However, looking to the speaking order, model dated 10.07.2025, it is clear that the reason assigned for rejection of the representation is arbitrary.
38. On the other hand, Shri B.D. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of reply supported the impugned order. It is submitted that looking to the transfer order dated 30.06.2025, it is clear that as many as 27 officers have been transferred from one place to another in public interest. Considering the exigencies of the department, that too on the basis of recommendation of Central Civil Services Board, since it is the transfer in the public interest on administrative exigencies and therefore, the general guidelines in respect of rotational transfer policy are not applicable in the present set of facts. In fact, Para- 17 of the RTP provide about transfer/posting in exigency of the service. It is submitted that transfer is an incident of service and no person can claim that where and how he is to Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' be posted.
30OA No. 562/2025
39. During course of arguments learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1) U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in 1993 SCC (4) 357 (2) Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of UP & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 4360/2007 dated 18.09.2007 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3) Sri Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orrisa & Ors. 1995 SCC Supl.
(4) State of Madya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Sri S.S. Koura & Ors. Reported in 1995 SCC (3)270 (5) National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan in Civil Appeal No. 1095-1096 of 2001 dated 11.09.2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (6) Anil Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in WP No 5199/2009 dated 21.01.2010 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
40. Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 states that allegation of malafide against the answering is baseless. In discharge of the official duty of post of Director, the appropriate steps have been taken by the answering private respondent in the matter. It was categorically submitted that the General Central Service Board comprises of 05 members out of which the respondent was also one of the members. The said board works under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary cum Agriculture Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' Marketing Advisor to the Government of India when all the 31 OA No. 562/2025 decisions about transfer/hosting are only taken collectively by the said Board and not individually by the answering respondent. It is further submitted that it is easy to allege bias against the particular person but it is very difficult to prove the same. In the present case, only bald statements have been made by the applicant and therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, the preposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) are not applicable. In fact, the impugned transfer order was issued in public interest and in administrative exigencies interest and therefore, the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
41. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and after the perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that by the office order dated 30.06.2025, the respondent department on the recommendations of the General Central Service Board, transferred and posted as many as 27 of their officers. Applicant's name finds place at serial No. 02, a person placed at serial number 06 has been transferred at Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' the place of the applicant i.e. at BHO, Nagpur. Further clause 3 of the said transfer order categorically states that 32 OA No. 562/2025 the transfers of the above mentioned officers are in public interest. When the department comes with plea of administrative exigency and public interest, then, there is very limited scope of judicial review for interference in the transfer orders, unless, the said transfer is contrary to any statutory rules or with a malafide. In the present case, there is no ground raised in the Original Application or during the hearing that the impugned transfer order is contrary to any statutory provisions.
42. Although, it is the contention of the applicant that transfer is a violation of the comprehensive Rotational Transfer Policy i.e. 23.07.2015 (Annexure-A/9) and therefore, impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed. In this regard Clause 17 of the policy needs to be reproduced here-below which reads as under:
"17. Notwithstanding the principles/norms of RTP laid down in this order above, in the exigencies of work or on administrative grounds or for administrative reasons, transfers/postings can be made disregarding any one or more of the provisions made in this order. This Policy offers only general guidelines to the competent authority and does not constitute rules. It also does not, in any manner, restrict the powers of competent authority to take decision with regard to postings of the personnel."Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30'
43. Looking to the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that exception has been carved out in the transfer policy that in 33 OA No. 562/2025 the exigencies of work or on administrative grounds or for administrative reasons transfer and posting can be made. Perusal of impugned transfer order and facts on record clearly demonstrate that there is an administrative ground. Although, the learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that in Para 03 of the impugned transfer order there is no mention of exigency of service or for administrative reason, it is only mentioned that transfer order is issued in "public interest". Arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be attractive but on deeper scrutiny, it is found that a hyper technical objection has been raised on behalf of the applicant. "Public Interest"
includes the exigencies of work or on administrative grounds or for administrative reasons so far it relates to transfer and respondents through their reply sufficiently placed material on record to held that transfer order is in exigency of service and therefore, on this ground no interference can be made.
43. So far as malafide is concern, the applicant has raised Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' allegation of malafide against respondent No. 6 which was categorically disputed by respondent No. 6 in his reply and 34 OA No. 562/2025 sur-rejoinder and such disputed facts cannot be gone into by this Tribunal in summary proceedings.
44. So far as, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) to held that in the present case on the ground of malice in law the impugned transfer order is liable to be interfered with. In case of Somesh Tiwari (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe 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 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 aside being wholly illegal.Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' 17. An enquiry was initiated against the appellant in terms of the allegations contained in an anonymous letter. Having regard to the directives of the Central 35 OA No. 562/2025 Vigilance Commission, no enquiry could have been initiated against him but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that in the said enquiry, the allegations were found to be untrue. Despite the same not only an order of transfer was passed but to a station, which, according to the respondents themselves, was "harsh".
18. The competent authority of the appellant did not consider his initial representation. Admittedly an order of stay was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal while disposing of OA No. 897 of 2005 dated 27-9-2005. By reason of the said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to dispose of his representation. When it was rejected, he filed a fresh original application. Indisputably he did not join his post at Shillong.
19. We, although, are of the opinion that the appellant, thus, should have joined at his transferred post, he did not do so as a result whereof he might have committed a misconduct. But while invoking the doctrine of "no work no pay", as urged by Mr Quadri, the superior courts must strike a balance. With a view to do justice to both the parties, the Court was required to consider the conduct of both the parties.
20. The respondents knew that the matter was pending before the Tribunal. They did not approach the Tribunal to obtain leave for passing the second order of transfer. They passed an order of transfer while considering the cases of promotion and transfer of a large number of officers. The order of transfer suffered from a total non-application of mind insofar as it proceeded on the premise that the appellant had already joined his post at Shillong. Even it was not stated that the said order of transfer was being passed Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' in modification of the earlier order of transfer or upon reconsideration of the matter afresh on humanitarian ground or otherwise. We may place on record an 36 OA No. 562/2025 extract from the note-sheet of Member (P&V) dated 31-10-2005 which reads as under:
"AC(P) (i.e petitioner) has tried to fix responsibility on some superintendents for loss/closure of some files about investigations against assessees, those superintendents, who happened to belong to SC/ST category on being thus pressured, had complained to the police and other agencies alleging harassment of backward classes by Shri Somesh Tiwari, a Brahmin, these complaints were found to be baseless and the police had not pursued the matter. Having failed at the local level, it is possible that these officers had lodged the complaint at Delhi which resulted in Shri Tiwari's transfer. Shri Tiwari is an honest and well-intentioned officer. ... It is proposed to give him less harsh posting."
(emphasis supplied) Removal of the appellant from Bhopal to a place which is "less harsh" was thus recommended, which had evidently been acted upon. It is thus demonstrable that "Shillong" was considered to be a harsh posting.
21. For appreciating the effect of such an order, we may also notice the order dated 19-10-2005 which has been reproduced by the High Court in its impugned judgment, the relevant portion whereof reads thus:
"2. As per Para 9.1 of the New Transfer Policy, the Government may, if necessary in public interest, transfer or post any officer to any station or post. Para 9.2 of the policy stipulates that an officer against whom the CVC has recommended initiation of vigilance proceedings, should not normally be posted or remain posted at the station where the cause of the vigilance proceedings originated. He shall also not be posted on a 'sensitive' charge. This restriction will remain in operation till such time the vigilance matter is not closed.Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30'
3. In the case of Shri Tiwari, he belongs to Madhya Pradesh and on enquiry into complaint of working on caste biased ideology he was to be over dependent 37 OA No. 562/2025 upon a set of officers, apparently giving an impression that he (is) working on caste biased ideology. These circumstances have necessitated his transfer from Bhopal Central Excise Commissionerate to Shillong Commissionerate."
No vigilance enquiry was initiated against him. The order of transfer was passed on material which was non-existent. The order, therefore, not only suffers from total non-application of mind on the part of authorities of Respondent 1, but also suffers from malice in law.
45. On the aforesaid factual position as emerged from the record, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that action of the said respondents suffers from malice in law. But, in the present case factual position is different. Thus, in view of aforesaid, it cannot be held that impugned transfer is liable to be quashed on the ground of malice in law.
46. At this stage, relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.L. Abbas (supra), are also necessary which reads as under:
"An order of transfer is an incident of Government Service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' required by proper authority". Fundemental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to 38 OA No. 562/2025 transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order,- though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief" to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a set-back some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right."
47. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and following Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30' preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the challenge made by the applicant to the impugned 39 OA No. 562/2025 transfer order and speaking order is unsustainable. However, after joining of the applicant at the transferred place at Mumbai, if the applicant submits any representation on the ground of family circumstance, then the competent authority is directed to decide the same in a fair and reasonable manner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of submission of aforesaid representation.
48. In view of the aforesaid observation, the present Original Application is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending MAs., if any, are also disposed of.
(Umesh Gajankush) Member (J) ~Vv~ Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2025.12.02 13:39:25+05'30'