Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P Radhakrishnan vs Revenue on 11 August, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE Tribunal
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00248/2025
Monday, this the 11th day of August, 2025.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
P.Radhakrishnan, Aged 55 years, S/o Paul Raj, Now working as
Deputy Director FU-I, Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin Zona l
Office, Kanoose Castle, A.K. Seshadri Road,
Cochin-682011. Residing at Flat No. 4L, DD Nest,
Kathrikkadavu, Kaloor Post, Ernakulam, Kerala- 682017.
-Applicant
[By Advocate: Mrs.Girija K Gopal]
Versus
1. Union of India Represented by Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 128A, North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Pravarthan Bhavan,
New Delhi-110011
3. Assistant Director (Establishment), Directorate of
Enforcement, Pravarthan Bhavan, New Delhi-110011
4. Additional Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Cochin Zonal Office, Kanoose Castle
A.K. Seshadri Road, Cochin-682011.
5. Chairman, Civil Services Board, Directorate of Enforcement,
(Headquarters Office) Pravarthan Bhavan New Delhi-110011.
-Respondents
By Advocates : Mr. M.N.Manmadan, SCGSC
Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, ASG
Mr.Jaya Sankar V Nair]
DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30'
O.A.No.248/2025 2
The Original Application having been heard on 10.07.2025 the
Tribunal on 11.08.2025 delivered the following:
ORDER
Applicant is the Deputy Director, Functional Unit-I in the Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin Zonal Office. He is aggrieved by the Annexure-A9 order of transfer by which he has been transferred from Kochi Zonal Office to Srinagar Zonal Office. Annexure-A10 order dated 12.06.2025 is also under challenge, whereunder he was instantly relieved from duty from the Directorate of Enforcement, Kochi. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking to quash Annexures-A9 and A10 and to declare that his inter region transfer is non-est in law, issued without authority and not in consonance with Annexure-A3 transfer policy, to declare that he is entitled to be retained at the Zonal Office, Kochi itself till the expiration of the minimum tenure of three years from the date of Annexure-A2 order and such other reliefs.
2. Applicant is a native of Kerala. He was initially appointed as Assistant Enforcement Officer and posted in Mumbai on 02.09.1993. He worked in Mumbai, in Central Region till 31.08.1995. Thereafter he was DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 3 transferred to Trivandrum Sub Zonal Office, which was later closed on formation of the Cochin Zonal Office, in Southern Region and worked there upto 24.04.2007. He was then transferred to Zonal Office, Kochi and worked there. On 15.09.2011 he was promoted as Enforcement Officer. Even then he continued there. On 28.07.2014 he was promoted as Assistant Director and on 09.12.2020 promoted as Deputy Director and on all these promotions he was allowed to continue in Cochin itself. On 12.12.2020, though he was transferred to Zonal Office II, Chennai, was retained in Cochin since he was handling many sensitive cases, investigation of which required his presence in Cochin. On 12.08.2022 he was transferred to Zonal Office II, Chennai. After working in Chennai till 27.05.2024, on his request he was transferred back to Cochin and posted in FU-II. Thereafter, under Annexure-A5 order of 2025, he was transferred and posted to Functional Unit-I Kochi. According to the applicant, while so, before completing the tenure of three years he has been prematurely transferred to Srinagar and instantly relieved from the post even without serving a copy of the transfer order. He alleges that both Annexures-A9 and A10 are illegal, arbitrary and are liable to be interfered with.
DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 4
3. Referring to Annexure-A3 transfer policy he said that he is entitled to continue in Kochi for three years from 17.02.2025. Even if Annexure-A2 is taken into consideration, since he has not completed three years from 20.07.2024, such an untime transfer is illegal, no reason has been stated in Annexure-A9 for his premature transfer. Therefore, both Annexures-A9 and A10 are liable to be quashed.
4. According to the applicant, while issuing Annexure-A9, no reason has been stated either administrative exigency or public interest. It is in total violation of the guidelines and circulars and also Annexure-A3 transfer policy. Annexure-A10 does not conform to the requirement of transfer of charge provided in Rule 286(1) of the General Finance Rules, 2017. It is also stated that there is no indication that the transfer has been effected on the basis of the recommendations of the Civil Services Board as provided in Annexure-A3. There is no reason stated for his untime and premature transfer from Kochi to Srinagar, which is about 3390 kms far from Kochi. It is vitiated by malafides. It has been issued by incompetent person without the concurrence of the Civil Services Board. Moreover, in Kochi there are seniors in station and therefore there is no DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 5 justification in picking and choosing him for giving an inconvenient transfer. It is also alleged that Annexure-A10 relieving order was issued without serving him a copy of the transfer order. There is absolutely no necessity in hurriedly relieving him. Annexure-A9 has been issued on extraneous considerations. It is highly discriminatory. He bears an impeccable service record and that was why he was transferred from Functional Unit-II to Functional Unit-I where highly sensitive and vigilance matters are being dealt with.
5. Respondents filed reply challenging the contentions of the applicant. According to them, Annexure-A9 order has been passed in accordance with Annexure-A3 transfer policy guidelines. Even though tenure is fixed, clause 4.8 of the policy permits transfer of an official before the completion of the tenure, for reasons to be recorded with the approval of the competent authority. Annexure-A9 order was passed in tune with Annexure-A3. Any officer does not have any vested right to be remained posted in the same station for a minimum period of three years.
6. The reply has been verified and signed by Smt.Simi S., Deputy DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 6 Director, who has been put in charge of the applicant in Functional Unit-I, Kochi. According to the respondents, the premature transfer of the applicant had occurred on receipt of inputs/allegations of harassment, threatening or extortion against the applicant, which needed to be enquired into in a fair and judicious manner. Out of the total 32 years of service put in by the applicant, who commenced service in 1993 as Assistant Enforcement Officer, 30 years was in Southern Region and 28 years was in State of Kerala. In FU-I he was dealing with sensitive and vigilance matters pertaining to the conduct of officials of the Kochi Zonal Office.
7. Further, it is submitted that, on promotion, a Group-A officer requires to be transferred out of the region except in cases when the tenure has not exceeded two years. The applicant was promoted as Deputy Director on 09.12.2020 and was due to be transferred out of the region. But he has been continuing in Southern Region for more than 30 years.
8. On issue of Annexure-A9, according to the respondents, the applicant was asked to meet the Head of Office for receiving the order in DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 7 person, but knowing about the same he left the office without meeting the Head. Thus, the Annexure-A10 relieving letter was posted in email on 12.06.2025 at 17.58 hrs. Annexure-A9 also indicates that the said Simi was put in additional charge of FU-I with immediate effect. Thus, as shown in sl.No.3 of the second part Annexure-A9, Deputy Director, Simi assumed charge of FU-I on 12.06.2025 evening and the matter was communicated to the applicant through e-mail. Smt.Simi took charge of FU-I on 12.06.2025 at 6.14 PM.
9. According to the respondents, the applicant had knowledge about the Annexure-A9 order on 11.06.2025 itself, which was posted in the official whatsapp group. Applicant is a member of the group. Applicant had seen the order at 7.20 PM. However, before serving a copy directly to the applicant, he hurriedly left the office citing health reasons, without meeting the Head of Office. Annexure-A7 shows that his vitals were stable. In his absence, the said Simi assumed charge of the office of Deputy Director, FU-I. Thereafter, he approached this Tribunal on 14.06.2025 contending that his transfer is premature and not supported by recorded reasons. The interim order was obtained by misleading the DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 8 Tribunal. They have further submitted that the interim order was passed without recording the prima facie illegality, there was no balance of convenience or irreparable injury in granting such an interim order. Transfer is an incident of service and judicial interference is possible only on proven malafides or statutory breaches.
10. Before passing an interim order the said Simi had already assumed charge of Deputy Director, FU-I, so that, on the basis of the interim order, the applicant has been allowed to continue as Deputy Director, OSD in the same office.
11. It is further submitted, with the aid of numerous authorities, that transfer being an incident of service, he does not have any vested right to continue in Kochi. Such an order was passed in tune with the transfer policy. There is no requirement to grant any hearing before issuing the order of transfer. The interim order was obtained by misrepresentation, without pointing out the order putting Smt.Simi in charge of FU-I.
12. Further, it is submitted with reference to clause 4.8 of Annexure-A3 that even prior to the completion of minimum tenure one DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 9 can be transferred. Here, steps for enquiring into the inputs/allegations of harassment and threatening or extortion made against the applicant are going on. To ensure free and impartial enquiry, the transfer was made in public interest in exercise of power under clause 4.8 of Annexure-A3.
13. It is further submitted that the Enforcement Directorate is a sensitive organisation carrying out several important investigations into serious offences of money laundering and also implementing the FEMA. Probity and integrity of such an organisation is of utmost importance. Hence it is a matter of utmost priority and public interest to have allegations of harassment, threatening and extortion investigated efficiently without any room for doubt regarding the fairness and impartiality in the enquiry process.
14. Further, it is submitted that the aforesaid reasons have been duly recorded in accordance with clause 4.8 of transfer guidelines, that the order was passed duly complying with the directions.
15. Again, it is stated that on being promoted as Deputy Director on 09.12.2020 he was due to be transferred out of the region. He has continued in the region for more than 30 years. It is submitted that the DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 10 premature transfer of the applicant was happened in the aforesaid circumstances.
16. Further, it is submitted that in service jurisprudence, there is an implied condition of service that the appointing authority has wide discretion in the matter of transfer of employees. The applicant was transferred in special circumstances, after getting complaint about his alleged acts of harassment, threatening and extortion raised against him. During the course of enquiry into such allegations it is only fair that the applicant has to be kept out of the region. Further, it is submitted that interference in routine transfers without due cause would undermine institutional discipline, will set an unhealthy precedent and open floodgates for similar litigations from other officers discontented with their postings. Interim order was passed ignoring this institutional context. Against Annexure-A9 order there is no proved allegations of malafides or violation of statute or fundamental rights. Granting interim order in such cases sets an undesirable precedent where officers start challenging every transfer and posting order for the sake of their own convenience, thus eroding administrative predicability. So, the O.A. is DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 11 sought to be dismissed.
17. The applicant filed detailed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the O.A. According to him, Annexures-A9 and A10 are vitiated by malafides. He has been unnecessarily transferred in an arbitrary manner to a place at a distance of 3390 kms without disclosing any public interest or administrative exigency. Such an order will destabilise his family.
18. It is also submitted that the officer who signed the reply is incompetent to submit the same. There are complaints against her. Applicant was the head of the vigilance wing, who is in possession of many materials and that was why she had shown over-enthusiasm in assuming charge of the office of the applicant after office hours, in undue haste. It is reiterated that the order was passed without convening the Civil Services Board, that Annexure-A10 was issued without following the provisions of the General Financial Rules. Moreover, the transfer in lieu of punishment is illegal. Annexure-A9 is silent about any particular reason for the premature transfer of the applicant. Judicial interference is called for since administrative discretion was exercised improperly.
DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 12
19. According to the applicant, there is no justification in saying that he remained in Kerala for 28 years. State has no administrative unit. The Southern Region consists of Kerala and other States. Even after promotion he was allowed to continue in Kochi, in the Southern Region; except twice he had never put in any request for transferring to Kochi. There are numerous officers who are continuing for longer spells of service in the same station. Even though there are vacancies in Chennai, there is no justification in transferring him to a far of station. Annexures- A9 and A10 were served on him simultaneously, which smacks of malafides. Applicant had proceeded to hospital on the evening of 12.06.2025 with the knowledge and permission of the Head of Office, who had sent another staff member with him. The contentions regarding grant of interim order are bordering on contempt. Even though he was allowed to continue in the office, has not been permitted to function as Deputy Director FU-I, which is in violation of the interim order. Now, the respondents have filed reply incorporating reasons, which cannot be inferred from the impugned orders, which is illegal.
20. I heard Smt.Girija K Gopal, learned counsel for the applicant, DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 13 Sri.M.N.Manmadan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel and Sri.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Sri.Jayasankar V Nair for the respondents, very elaborately.
21. During the course of argument, learned Additional Solicitor General produced two sealed covers claiming that it contained copy of the minutes of Civil Services Board and copy of the complaint received by the respondents against the applicant which is being enquired into. After the Original Application was reserved for passing orders, the learned counsel for the applicant filed M.A.612/2025 contending that the contents in the sealed covers can be looked into and appreciated only after serving copy to the applicant and giving him further opportunity. Thereafter, on 28.07.2025 the applicant again moved M.A.655/2025 stating that under Annexure-A22 order dated 25.07.2025, one Ritesh Bhatt has been appointed in the place of the applicant in FU-I at Kochi. The Tribunal restrained the respondents from allowing him to join the office, till the disposal of the O.A.
22. The learned counsel for the applicant asserted that the respondents went wrong in transferring the applicant before completion DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 14 of the tenure. It is illegal and in violation of Annexure-A3 transfer norms. According to the learned counsel, Annexure-A9 was issued by an incompetent authority without placing the matter before the Civil Services Board. So, according to her, it is a clear exercise of malafides, which is liable to be interfered with. The act of the respondents in relieving the applicant before serving a copy of the transfer order also is illegal, the contention that it is part of the enquiry being initiated against him clearly indicates that the transfer is punitive in nature, which is illegal. The transfer of charge was effected without following the provisions of the GFR. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions reported in Ramavarma Thirumulpad v. State of Kerala [ILR 1985 (2) Ker 355], Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [(2009) 2 SCC 592], Chandru H.N. And others v. State of Karnataka and others [MANU/KA/0394/2011, judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos.20732/2024 and 20740/2024 dated 07.08.2024, judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Appeal No.16814/2024 dated 09.12.2024, judgment of the Delhi High Court in WP(C)No.38/2019 dated 10.10.2019, judgment of the Kerala High Court in W.A.No.1167/2025 DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 15 dated 27.05.2025, judgment of the Allahabad High Court in W.A.Nos.265/2024 and 268/2024 dated 16.01.2024, Subramanian T.S.R.and others v. Union of India and others [AIR 2014 SC 263], interim order of this Tribunal on O.A.346/2024 dated 26.06.2024, order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 29.04.2020 in Writ Petition No.2661/2020, judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 17.09.2024 in Writ Petition No.20730/2024, common order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 13.02.2025 in Writ Petition No.21204/2024 etc.
23. On the other hand, learned Additional Solicitor General has relied on the decisions in Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another [(2003) 4 SCC 104], Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa & others [1995 Supp (4) SCC 169], Union of India v. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit [(2020) 3 SCC 404], State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402], S.K.Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India [(2022) 12 SCC 1].
24. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, Annexure-A9 was passed duly complying with the directions in the transfer policy, that DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 16 complaint against the applicant was received at the regional level, which is being enquired into. The learned Solicitor General submitted two sealed covers, which, according to him, are the minutes of the Civil Services Board and also the copy of the written complaint. When the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that entering into an enquiry on an anonymous and pseudonymous complaint is illegal and violation of the standing instructions issued by the Vigilance Commission, the Additional Solicitor General pointed out that it is not an anonymous or pseudonymous complaint, but a complaint from a named person.
25. As mentioned earlier, the learned counsel opposed submission of such materials before the Tribunal without serving copy to the applicant. But having heard counsel on both sides and considering the circumstances, I find that even without opening the sealed covers, the O.A. can be disposed of. Thus I have decided not to open the sealed covers.
26. It is the admitted case that the applicant had started his career as Assistant Enforcement Officer in 1993. At first he was posted in Mumbai. Thereafter, initially, he was transferred to Trivandrum Sub Zonal DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 17 Office, which was later closed and he was shifted to Kochi Zonal Office. Then he was promoted as Enforcement Officer, even then he continued in Kochi. In 2014, he was promoted as Assistant Director and in 2020 as Deputy Director and on all these occasions, he was allowed to continue in Kochi office itself. Though on 12.12.2020 he was transferred to Zonal Office II, Chennai, was retained in Cochin. He joined Chennai Zonal Office on 23.08.2022. Thereafter, on request he was transferred back to Kochi office on 20.07.2024 in FU-II. Then he was put in charge of FU-I Kochi under Annexure-A5 dated 17.02.2025. Referring to Annexure-A3 transfer policy the applicant claims that he is entitled to continue in Kochi for three years from 17.02.2025. Even assuming that he was transferred to Kochi on 20.04.2024 he is liable to be displaced only in 2027 and the premature transfer is illegal and arbitrary. While making such a transfer for no good reasons, station seniority of two Deputy Directors was not considered. So, the applicant wants to say that he has right to continue in Kochi for three years, that the present order to transfer him to Srinagar is illegal and violative of the transfer norms.
27. The personal profile of the applicant is not in dispute. He has DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 18 put in 32 years of service, out of which 30 years had been in South Zone, 28 years is in Kerala itself, which forms part of the South Zone.
28. It is true that clause 4.1 of Annexure-A3 enables an officer in ED remain in the same station for a minimum continuous tenure of three years. But it is not an absolute rule. Clause 4.8 of Annexure-A3 provides for premature transfer in public interest. Here, the applicant has submitted that he was transferred by an incompetent authority in violation of the transfer norms. This has been denied by the respondents and according to them, transfer has been effected strictly in terms of Annexure-A3 policy. The averments in the reply statement in this regard are lacking particulars. But when argued, the learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that Anenxure-A9 was issued pursuant to the decision taken by the Civil Services Board where the Board had considered the complaint made against the applicant, which is required to be enquired into.
29. Even though Annexure-A9 does not suggest that it was issued pursuant to the decision of the Civil Services Board, it can be assumed that it was vetted by the Civil Services Board. Annexure-A9 is the order DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 19 whereby appointment/transfer and posting of many officials have been done including that of the applicant. Before passing the order, it is submitted that the matter was placed before the Civil Services Board.
30. Annexure-A9 contains posting/transfer of 31 persons, 27+4. Sl.Nos. 1 to 7 are fresh appointments. Learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that they are taken on deputation. Sl.Nos.8 to 27 are transfers, whereas four officials in the second table are put in additional charges. In this setting, undoubtedly, the postings must have vetted by the Civil Services Board.
31. As noticed earlier, in order to support the contentions of the respondents, they have placed a copy of the minutes of the Civil Services Board in a sealed cover. Since there is nothing to suspect the genuineness of the contention, this Tribunal did not deem it necessary to open the sealed cover and verify its correctness.
32. For yet another reason, I find it not necessary to open the sealed covers since it reportedly contain the name of the complainant, who had raised certain serious allegations against the applicant. It does not seem that the name of the person and other details be divulged DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 20 through these proceedings. It has been submitted that the enquiry is at an incipient stage.
33. There is no absolute rule that an officer shall not be transferred before expiry of the tenure. The applicant was transferred out of the Region pending enquiry into the allegations made against him.
34. Moreover, it is for the employer to decide where his employee should work. Out of the total 32 years of service of the applicant, 30 years was within Southern Region and 28 years was in State of Kerala. In fact the transfer norms do not postulate such a continuous tenure in the same region. Even at the time of successive promotions, the applicant has enjoyed the benefit of continuing in service in his home station for over 28 years. In such a situation, he cannot say that he has been transferred prematurely to Srinagar.
35. It was pointed out that since the untime transfer is ordered pending enquiry, it is punitive in nature. I am unable to subscribe to the contention. The applicant is not facing any disciplinary proceedings. From the version of the respondents it seems that a written complaint was received against the applicant at the Zonal level, which suggested DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 21 that he had tried to influence a person during an enquiry and tried to harass, threaten and extort him. The version of the learned Additional Solicitor General indicates that it is a complaint given by a named individual. Therefore, he has been transferred pending enquiry, facilitating free and fair enquiry.
36. In no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that such a transfer is punitive in nature. Hon'ble High Court had occasion to consider when does a transfer turn punitive. In the decision in Dinamony v. Dt.Supdt. Of Police, Kollam [1994(1) KLT 326], High Court has held as follows:
"11. ......If the transfer is intended to punish the petitioner it may be said that the transfer has been made not in the interest of administration but for the purpose of punishing him, in which case, it would be malafide. Therefore, consider what is meant by "punitive" and "punishment". To punish means to impose a penalty upon some person for a fault, offence or violation. Ordinary meaning of the word punish is to cause the offender to suffer for the offence or to inflict penalty for the offence. The word "punishment"
necessarily denotes or signifies some offence or wrong committed by the person who is punished. An action of the DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 22 employer to the detriment of the employees' interest would not be punishment as long as the action is not motivated by a desire to punish him for the alleged fault or wrong. Mere act of causing inconvenience or suffering incidental to the transfer, by itself does not mean punishment. Punishment involves the idea that penalty is inflicted because of commission of a wrong. In ordinary parlance punishment means any kind of suffering. But when an employee is transferred because his presence is harmful to the smooth running of the organisation, the element of punishment is absent. The idea is to keep the organisation clear of internal obstruction. In every case of errant behaviour of a subordinate, the superior is not bound to hold a department enquiry and seek punishment. He is free to resort to other ways of running his department smoothly. Therefore, the infliction of inconvenience or suffering is not necessarily punitive............"
37. Here, the applicant is a Group-A officer in the cadre of Deputy Director. He is a high-ranking officer. It appears from the version of the learned Standing Counsel and the Additional Solicitor General that serious allegations have been raised against him, which are being enquired into. The enquiry is at preliminary stage only. The respondents have not made up their mind to proceed further or to initiate any action against him so DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 23 far. So, the present move to shift him facilitating free and fair enquiry cannot be termed as an act of punishment.
38. The learned counsel for the applicant was very much sceptical about the way in which the applicant was tried to be eased out of the office and the said Simi was put in charge. Referring to Annexure-A20 FIR in Crime No.1497/2024 of Kollam East Police Station, it is submitted that the 'madam' referred in the crime is the said Simi, that she has moved superiors seeking help for defending the case. Thus her over-enthusiasm to get access to the documents kept in the possession and power of the applicant in his capacity as the Vigilance head, is understandable. The learned counsel also raised doubts in the said Simi filing the reply, who is not a party to the proceedings, whereas the 4th respondent is very much available in station. But, there are reasons to believe that the applicant had received knowledge about the transfer on 11.06.2025 itself. The respondents have asserted that the order was posted in the official whatsapp group and the 4th respondent had tried to contact him over phone, but he did not pick up the phone. It is also hard to believe that the applicant had received knowledge about the transfer order only at DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 24 5.58 pm on 12.06.2025 when communicated through the relieving order. It seems that, after knowing about the order, he was trying to avoid its service on him, which might have prompted Smt.Simi to assume charge, with immediate effect, as ordered in Annexure-A9. In fact Annexure-A9 itself contains an arrangement placing the said Simi in additional charge of the post held by the applicant.
39. All out efforts have been made by the learned counsel for the applicant to say that the Annexure-A9 was passed flouting the terms of Annexure-A3. Relying on the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Chandru H.N., quoted supra, the learned counsel asserted that the transfer guidelines have statutory force, which is not liable to be violated. She has pointed out that this decision has been followed with approval in numerous other decisions referred to above.
40. Such an argument of the learned counsel cannot be upheld in the facts of the case. Firstly, as adverted to earlier, Annexure-A3 itself contains a rider in the form of clause 4.8, which enables premature transfer of an employee, for reasons to be recorded with the approval of the competent authority. It seems that such riders were not available in DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 25 the transfer norms considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and other authorities relied on by the learned counsel. Here, the submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General clearly indicate that a complaint preferred against the applicant was the reason for his premature transfer, which was considered by the Civil Services Board.
41. Secondly, following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402] seem apposite:
"7.............Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 26 rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision."
42. Further, in Punjab and Sind Bank and others v. Durgesh Kuwar [AIR 2020 SC 3040], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"17. We must begin our analysis of the rival submissions by adverting to the settled principle that transfer is an exigency of service. An employee cannot have a choice of postings. Administrative circulars and guidelines are indicators of the manner in which the transfer policy has to be implemented. However, an administrative circular may not in itself confer a vested right which can be enforceable by a writ of mandamus. Unless an order of transfer is established to be malafide or contrary to a statutory provision or has been issued by an authority not competent to order transfer, the Court in exercise of judicial review would not be inclined to interfere. These principles emerge from the judgments which have been relied upon by the appellants in support of their submissions and to which we have already made a reference above. There can be no dispute about the position in law."
43. As pointed out by the respondents, transfer is an incident of service. The applicant is having all India transfer liability. He had continued for long spells of service in the same office. He cannot have any vested right to continue in Kochi office. According to him, he should DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 27 have been transferred to Chennai, if not to Srinagar. Such contentions are not available to an employee.
44. The assertion that Annexure-A9 was issued on the recommendations of the Civil Services Board makes it clear that the order was passed by a competent authority. The applicant could not make out any malafides in the order of transfer. It cannot be termed as punitive. The applicant has been posted in Srinagar in the existing vacancy.
45. The challenge against transfer will hold good only if it is issued by an incompetent authority, vitiated by malafides, in contravention of any statutory provision or to a post/vacancy other than the post held by the employee. Here, none of the grounds can hold good.
46. To sum up, transfer is an incident of service. No one has any vested right to seek transfer to a particular place or to seek his retention in a particular station. It is the discretion of the employer to decide where the employee should work. Such a prerogative of the employer, ordinarily, is not subject matter of judicial review. The Court or Tribunal is not an appellate forum to assess the discretion exercised by the employer. On all these considerations, such a plea raised by the applicant cannot be DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 28 upheld.
47. Before parting with, the belligerence and intolerance of the respondents against the O.A. as well as interim order passed by the Tribunal is expressed more than once in the reply statement. The tone and tenor of the reply statement is suggestive that the officers of the Enforcement Directorate have an assumed immunity from such orders. Averments in the reply stating that such interference would undermine institutional discipline, open floodgates for similar litigations etc. are reckless. I must say that such contentions by an organisation susceptible to discipline cannot be accepted in good taste. The ED is not above law or omnipotent. When such an application is filed before this Tribunal, which is the competent forum, do they expect that it should be thrown overboard or dismissed in limine? I take strong exception to the averments in the reply belittling the authority of the Tribunal. It was the outcome of the misdemeanor of the respondents that an employee like the applicant could continue in the same station for more than 28 years and in the same region for 30 years. Allowing an officer to continue in sensitive posts for unduly long spells will create vested interests. Vigilance DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 29 Commission has issued directives against such postings. It is against Annexure-A3 also. The conduct of the respondents in not allowing the applicant to function as DD, FU-I after the interim order, attempt to appoint another in the place of the applicant through Annexure-A22, prove their belligerence and indifference. Suffice it to say that they ought to have guarded against making such reckless averments in the reply. The subsequent conducts are also not wholesome.
The Original Application is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Interim orders are vacated. Two sealed covers which are intact, shall be returned through the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. No costs.
(Dated, this the 11th August, 2025)
JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30'
O.A.No.248/2025 30
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- True copy of the request dated 27.05.2024 submitted
by the applicant before the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A2- True copy of Order (ESTT) No. 230/2024 in file No.
F.No. Est-19011/14/2024-EST-HO dated 20.07.2024 by which the applicant was transferred to Kochi Zonal Office.
Annexure A3- True copy of Posting/Transfer Policy in respect of Officers/officials of Enforcement Directorate as per File No.K-11022/62/2013-Ad.ED dated 7.6.2019 notified by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Annexure A4- True copy of Notification bearing No.Est-
19011/14/2024-EST-HO dated 11.03.2025 issued by the Joint Director in the office of the 2nd respondent. Annexure A5- True copy of Order (Estt) No.78/2025 at file no. F.No. Est-19/1/2024-EST-HO dated 17.02.2025 issued by the Assistant Director in the Office of the 1st respondent.
Annexure A6- True copy of Bill No.MR15154-26 dated 12.06.2025 issued from Lakshmi Hospital, Diwan's Road, Kochi Annexure A7- True copy of the certificate dated 12.06.2025 issued by the Resident Medical Officer, Lakshmi Hospital, Diwan's Road, Kochi.
Annexure A8- True copy of the applicant's leave application dated 13.06.2025 addressed to the 4th respondent.
DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30'
O.A.No.248/2025 31
Annexure A9- True copy of Order (ESTT) No.175/2025 in File No.F.
No:Est-19/1/2024-EST-HO dated 11.6.2025 issued by the Asst. Director (Estt) in the office of the 2nd respondent, whereby appointment/transfer and posting of many officials have been done including the applicant.
Annexure A10- True copy of Order No.A-11/02/KCZO/2024 (RKDD) dated 12.06.2025 issued by the 4th respondent by which the applicant was unilaterally relieved.
Annexure A11- True copy of the screenshot of the mail sent by the 4th respondent to the applicant on 12.6.2025 in his email id [email protected].
Annexure A12- True copy of the relevant extract of General Financial Rules 2017 containing GFR 286(1).
Annexure A13- True copy of the relevant extract of General Financial Rules 2017 containing Form GFR 16.
Annexure A14: True copy of the Central Civil Services (Joining Time) Rules, 1979.
Annexure A15: True copy of Establishment Order No.44/2011 dated 15.9.2011 issued by the Additional Director(Admin), Directorate of Enforcement. New Delhi, promoting 35 Assistant Enforcement Officers across the country as Enforcement Officers Annexure A16: True copy of Order (Admn) No.87/2014 dated 18.7.2014 issued by the Joint Director (Admin), Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, promoting 31 Enforcement Officers across the country as DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 32 Assistant Directors.
Annexure A17: True copy of Order No.183 /2025 in file No.EST-
19/1/2025 EST-HQ dated 17.6.2025 issued by the Assistant Director in the office of the 2nd respondent Annexure A18: A true copy of the email dated 19.6.2025 forwarded by Smt.Simi S to various officers Annexure A19- True copy of judgment in Cdr. Amit Kumar Sharma v.
Union of India, 2022 SCC On Line SC 1570: 2022 KHC 5720 Annexure A20.- True copy of the FIR No. 1497/2024 of Kollam East Police Station lodged based on the complaint of one Mr. James George along with English Transilation Annexure A21: True copy of the letter bearing number F.No.LD/AA/ KCZO/208/2025 dated 28.4.2025 issued from the Headquarters of Directorate of Enforcement, Pravarthan Bhavan, New Delhi to the Special Director, Pravarthan Bhavan, South Zone, Chennai and the Joint Director, Cochin Zonal Office, Cochin in the matter of James George and others in ECIR/KCZO/ 03/2016 in ECIR/KCZO/01/2016 Annexure A22: True copy of order (ESTT) No.210/2025 in File No.EST-
19/1/2024-EST-HO dated 25.07.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent Annexure - R1 (A): True copy of the email communication dated 12.06.2025 at 04.30 P.M with regard to Annexure A9. Annexure R1 (B): True copy of the email communication dated DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30' O.A.No.248/2025 33 12.06.2025 at 06.14 P.M with regard to Annexure A9. Annexure R1 (C): True copy of the screen shot of the official WhatsApp group of Enforcement Directorate, Cochin Zonal office.
Annexure- R1 (D):True Copy of the screenshot of the call log dated 12.06.2025.
Annexure R1 (E): True Copy of the screenshot of the WhatsApp chat dated 12.06.2025 Annexure R1 (F): True Copy of the postal receipt dated 14.06.2025 Annexure-R1(G): Original of the postal acknowledgment dated 24.06.2025 'Unclaimed' ********** DEEPA S 2025.08.11 14:13:37+05'30'