Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Milan Yadav vs Accountant General (A And E)-Ii U P ... on 28 October, 2025
Reserved on 09.10.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 28th day of October, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 711 of 2025
Ram Milan Yadav (Personnel No 952) Son of Shri Mahrajdin
Yadav, Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Provincial Division,
PWD, Jaunpur (PIN - 222001)
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Azim Ahmad Kazmi, Shri Sanjay Kumar Om
and Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Versus
1. Accountant General (A&E) - 2, U.P., 20, Sarojini Naidu Marg,
Prayagraj (PIN - 211001)
2. Senior Deputy Accountant General (DACC) O/o Accountant
General (A&E) - 2, U.P. 20, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Prayagraj (PIN -
211001)
3. Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD Jaunpur - 222001.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Shri Udai
Chandani and Shri K P Singh
ORDER
Shri Azim Ahmad Kazmi, Shri Sanjay Kumar Om and Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Shri Udai Chandani and Shri K P Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
"i. Issue an order or direction to quash the Office Order No. AE
- II/03/WM-I/Gr.II/AGT-2025/516/Vol.I/1302 Dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Respondent no. 2 to the extent by which the applicant has been transferred from Provincial Division, PWD, RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page Jaunpur to Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Amroha (Annexure No. A-1) ii. Issue an order or direction commanding the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation dated 07.07.2025 submitted by the applicant in terms of the Transfer and Posting policy issued by CAG.
iii. Issue any other / further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case or to which the applicant may be entitled in law. iv. Award the cost of the petition to the applicant."
3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the office order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Senior Deputy Accountant General (DACC) O/o Accountant General (A&E)
- 2, U.P. 20, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Prayagraj by means of which the applicant has been transferred from Provincial Division, PWD, Jaunupr to Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Amroha. The applicant contends that the transfer has been made in utter disregard to the transfer and posting guidelines dated 22.01.2025 and clarification dated 27.05.2025 issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working on the designation of Senior Divisional Accounts Officer of UP DAO/DA cadre in the respondents' department. The transfer and posting of the employees of the department are to be done in accordance with the Transfer and Posting Policy and Guidelines issued by the CAG from time to time and most recently been issued vide Circular No 4 - Staff (App-III)/2025 No 51-Staff (Appt.)-III/F- 110-2023 dated 22.01.2025 which prescribes the manner and modalities of implementing the transfer and posting of DA cadre by the department. The aforesaid Transfer and Posting policy provides for classification of Divisions into four categories. Subsequent to the aforesaid Circular, a clarification vide Circular dated 27.05.2025 was issued in respect of the aforesaid revised transfer policy to rectify the doubts which were prevalent in the earlier guidelines. The applicant was previously posted as Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer at Construction Division, PWD, Jaunpur from the year 2021 till 2024 in terms of the transfer order dated 16.07.2021 and after three years of service, he was transferred to Provincial Division, PWD, Jaunpur RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page vide transfer order dated 05.07.2024. In the meantime, the applicant was promoted as Senior Divisional Accounts Officer on 01.01.2020. Subsequently, vide order dated 05.07.2025, he has been transferred from his posting at Provincial Division, PWD, Jaunpur to Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Amroha which the applicant claims to have been done in violation of the transfer and posting policy dated 22.01.2025 and clarification circular dated 27.05.2025 issued by the CAG. The applicant is of the contention that his name was not mentioned in the proposed annual transfer list dated 21.05.2025 but despite this fact, his transfer has been done before the scheduled completion of his tenure which is contrary to the provisions enshrined in the aforesaid transfer policy. It has been further alleged by the applicant that he has been discriminated by the respondent no 2 as opportunity was given to all the other officials who were transferred in the Annual General Transfer - 2025 to submit their option of stations of their choice but the applicant was deprived of that opportunity by the respondent no 2. It has also been alleged by the applicant that no opportunity to submit representation / objection was given to him which is mandatory in view of the provisions stipulated in the transfer guidelines nor were any reasons assigned before effecting the transfer. Further contention of the applicant is that his transfer has been effected in a haphazard, non- transparent and arbitrary manner attributed by blatant highhandedness and illegality on the part of the respondents' authorities in spite of his unblemished and immaculate service and thus by way of the instant original application, he seeks quashing of the impugned transfer order dated 05.07.2025 thereby directing the respondents to allow him to continue working at his present place of posting.
Counter has been filed by Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the respondents no 1 and 2 wherein it has been contended that the transfer of the applicant has been effected because on administrative grounds and in the public interest, there have been numerous complaints received with regard to the applicant which includes indiscipline, regular unauthorized absence, non-cooperation in the RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page divisional work, etc. Time and again, the applicant has been warned about his conduct but no reparations were ever made by him regarding his professional conduct. It has been further contended that the transfer of the applicant has never been made in an arbitrary manner but on every occasion, a proper committee has been constituted to look into the complaints made against the applicant and only after taking into consideration the recommendations of the said committee and giving proper opportunity of hearing to the applicant as well as calling explanation from him, his transfer has been effected. It has been further contended that transfer of the applicant has been made in accordance with stipulated provisions and transfer policy and guidelines and no illegality can be attributed to the impugned order.
Counter has also been filed by Shri Kaushlesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 wherein it has been stated that applicant's transfer has been made in the same department. The professional conduct of the applicant has been very unsatisfactory and several complaints pertaining to indiscipline, non-cooperation, regular unauthorized absence, etc. have been received against him due to which the working of the department is badly affected. Thus, alternative arrangement was liable to be made by the department to address the irregularities done on the part of the applicant and the same was done. Further contention is made that adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant before the issuance of the impugned transfer order.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the employee of the AG Office and was previously posted as Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer at Construction Division, PWD, Jaunpur from the year 2021 till 2024 in terms of the transfer order dated 16.07.2021 and after three years of service, he was transferred to Provincial Division, PWD, Jaunpur vide transfer order dated 05.07.2024. In the meantime, the applicant was promoted as Senior RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page Divisional Accounts Officer on 01.01.2020. Subsequently, vide order dated 05.07.2025, he has been transferred from his posting at Provincial Division, PWD, Jaunpur to Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Amroha. It was argued that the latest transfer was made even before the applicant had completed his tenure. The respondents / competent authority did not follow the guidelines applicable for transfer of the employee of the AG Office which is binding to them. It was next argued that initially a proposed transfer list was issued and applicant's name was not mentioned in that list. Later on, when final list was published, the name of the applicant and another person namely Smt Abha Tripathi were included in the transfer list. Referring to the footnote, it was further argued that a specific note was made in the final transfer order that applicant as well as Smt Abha Tripathi have been transferred on administrative grounds. It was next argued that applicant has been a punctual officer and was performing his duties very carefully and to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. It was also argued that in the guidelines itself, category of posting places as to from which place the transfer has to be made and to where, has been shown. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the Annexure No A-2 and further argued that the applicant has been transferred to a different division which is in utter violation of the clause 1 of the transfer policy dated 22.01.2025 in which at that very paragraph category of division has been disclosed. The applicant was also not informed or invited for giving his option for his choice of posting which is a mandatory exercise. It was next argued that ACR of the applicant was not bad and facts disclosed in the counter affidavit to this extent are false and it has only been mentioned to supplement the illegal transfer order. Only in the event when an official fall in non- performing category, he should be considered for transfer / posting in Lowest Graded Division, as per administrative convenience, without considering his/her choice. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the sub paragraph H of Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid notification and it was next argued that detailed reason has not been specified in the transfer order for transfer of the applicant. It RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page is also argued that if there was any complaint against the applicant, instead of starting any disciplinary proceedings, the applicant's transfer cannot be made as a punitive measure. In this matter, the transfer order is also made on the basis of request / recommendation of a Member of Rajya Sabha which is also illegal. It was further argued that at one point of time, a recommendation has been made for transfer of the applicant but vide letter dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure A-8 to the OA), the same was turned down as there was no any evidence against the applicant for his transfer. It was next argued that if the applicant was not passing the bills for payment to the contractor or has committed any disobedience / misconduct, a disciplinary proceeding should have been started against him. Since no such proceedings were ever started when the transfer order was passed, thus action taken by the competent authority amongst the respondents is also against the settled proposition of law. To further substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon following case laws:
i. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Deepa V Ashistha Vs State of UP reported in 1995 0 Supreme (All) 1155.
ii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Pawan Kumar Srivastava Vs UP State Electricity Board reported in 1995 0 Supreme(All) 80 iii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs UP Jal Nigam and others reported in (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 740 iv. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs Union of India reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1399 v. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Umesh Chandra Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 1987 LawSuit(All) 277
6. Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the respondents no 1 and 2 argued that the applicant was transferred on administrative exigency. He was not performing his duties in accordance with the RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page rules. He was a habitual absentee and he was also a habitual late comer. Applicant's transfer cannot be termed to be illegal when a recommendation has been sent by the Member of Parliament. It is also argued that administrative exigency has arisen which necessitated the transfer of the applicant for smooth functioning of the office and to accelerate the development work. It is also argued that in all cases, the transfer made on administrative exigencies, just because disciplinary proceedings were not started, it cannot be held that the applicant could not have been transferred. Even without initiating the disciplinary proceedings, on the grounds of administrative exigencies, transfer can be made. Since the applicant was transferred on administrative exigency, there was no occasion to invite option from him regarding his choice of posting. If the applicant's name was not found in the proposed transfer list, same cannot be a ground to challenge the transfer order. It is the employer who will decide as to where an employee will be transferred and posted for smooth functioning of the department / office. An employee who has accepted the employment of transferable job cannot argue that he will be posted in a particular station only. It is also argued that guidelines referred by the learned counsel for the applicant is in regard to the regular and compassionate transfer and thus submissions raised on behalf of the applicant regarding violation of the transfer policy is not acceptable. It is further argued that since the applicant has failed to establish malafide and he was not performing his duties in accordance with rules and there were a number of complaints against him thus due to this reason for smooth functioning of the Office, he has been transferred and there is no any illegality in the impugned order. To substantiate his case further, Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following case laws:
i. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs S L Abbas reported in 1993 (4) SCC 354.
ii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S K Nausad Rahaman And Others Vs Union of India and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266.
RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page iii. Judgment dated 05.09.2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dr Krishna Chandra Dubey Son of Sri Ram Vs Union of India reported in 2005:AHC:705-DB iv. Judgment dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No 18992 of 2023 titled Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of UP and others.
Similar argument has been raised by Shri R K Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. Shri K P Singh learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded party argued that development work was being hampered due to inaction on the part of the applicant and due to this reason, he was transferred from the Provincial Division Jaunpur to Amroha. There were several complaints against him including that he was a habitual absentee, late comer and was not following the instructions of the seniors and due to this reason, his transfer cannot be said to be illegal. To substantiate his argument, Shri K P Singh has placed reliance upon the following case laws:
i. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S C Saxena Vs Union of India and others reported in 2006(9) SCC 583.
ii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaran Sungomal Poshani reported in 1989 (2) SCC 602.
iii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs State of UP reported in 2007 (8) SCC 150.
iv. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 SCC 659.
v. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs S L Abbas reported in 1993 (4) SCC 354.
vi. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs SS Kourav reported in 1995 (3) SCC 270.
RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page vii. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A Marimuthu Vs Union of India and another reported in 1990 12 ATC 305 viii. Judgment dated 25.07.1989 passed by the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 317 of 1989 titled A Marimuthu Vs Union of India and Another.
8. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records and also carefully perused the case laws relied upon by the contesting parties.
9. As the facts of the case have already been narrated above in detail, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. Before dwelling upon the facts of the case, it is pertinent to rephrase the case laws relied upon by the contesting parties which is done as follows:
As regards to the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant:
i. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad passed in the case of Deepa Vashistha, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that guidelines in respect of the transfer of employees are to be followed by the authorities concerned and no deviation from the same is possible. Learned counsel has argued that while in the referred case, the Hon'ble Court has deliberated upon the issue of posting of husband and wife at the same station, the provision applies in case of each and every transfer. The relevant paragraphs as relied upon, are quoted herein below:
"17. However, in a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court rendered in Home Secretary, U. T. Chandigarh v. Darshjit Singh Grewal, JT 1993 (4) SC 387, Their Lordships have ruled that policy guidelines are relatable to the executive power of the administration, and having enunciated a policy of general application and having communicated it to all concerned, the Administration is bound by it. It can, no doubt, change the policy but until that is done, it is bound to adhere to it.
19. Thus, the guidelines in respect of couple in Government service, have taken care of that husband and wife should be placed at one station.
Placing the words "as far as possible", it is couched not in negatives form and accordingly the same is interpreted by the Apex Court.
RITU RAJ SINGH
9|Page
20. Taking into account the human considerations and social needs, the aforesaid guidelines have been framed and the basic idea behind it is that whole set up of the family may not be disturbed notwithstanding the fact that said guidelines are not in imperative form. Thus, it needs consideration with positive approach till the policy is not changed or amended in view of the decision in Home Secretary, V. T. Chandigarhs case (supra), and if it is not possible to keep husband and wife at one place, cogent reasons in such cases are excepted to be assigned so that transferee husband or wife, as the case may be, able to know the reasons. If any policy has been framed and still operative, the executive actions are expected to be in conformity with the same and not to negate it.
21. In other words, in the garb of public interest or administrative exigencies, it is not at the whims of the authority to disturb the family by transferring one of the husband and wife to a different place since the guidelines are not in imperative form or they have no force of law. If the administrative exigencies or public interest so requires, certainly husband and wife may be transferred to different places but only in exceptional cases i.e. rarest of rare cases, for which no illustration can be given."
ii. Similarly, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad passed in the case of Pawan Kumar Srivastava (supra), learned counsel argued that transfer cannot be done simply in the garb of public interest or administrative exigency and that it should be made on reasonable grounds. To substantiate the same, learned counsel has relied upon the following paragraph of the said judgment:
"(10) THE seven fold arguments of the respondents relying upon the law as aforesaid cannot help upholding the impugned transfer order particularly in view of the fact that the respondents, case of impugned transfer on administrative ground or in public interest, has not been found to be believable. In view of the law laid down in respect of exercise of power and the corrupt motive in paragraphs 6 and 7 of me case of S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 the contentions of the respondents relating to malafide and consequent maintainability of the writ petition are not tenable. The contention relating to requirement at Anpara also cannot stand as transfer, as it stands ultimately is to Tanda not at Anpara. As to the disputed question of fact relating to administrative ground, me objection cannot stand in view of the fact that the matter can be decided from the admitted documents and no further enquiry is required to be made. The contention relating to the power to transfer even on complaints by political parties treating the same to be administrative ground is in my opinion, misconceived as political considerations have been held to be not proper consideration in the matter of administrative functions particularly in the level of the petitioner. In this respect the observations of this Court is referred to hereinabove made in the case of Sheo Kumar Sharma and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal (supra) are relevant."
RITU RAJ SINGH 10 | P a g e iii. Similarly, arguing that the transfer of an employee is to be made on the basis of set norms and guidelines and it cannot be done arbitrarily, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi (supra) and relied upon the following paragraph:
"3. In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers g ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration."
iv. Similarly, arguing that transfer cannot be made in lieu of punishment against an employee and that the government servant cannot be victimized because of that transfer and unreasonable exercise of its power by the authority to transfer an employee is bad in the eyes of law, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Umesh Chand Tiwari (supra) and has referred to the following paragraphs therein:
Somesh Tiwari (supra):
"19. 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.
20. 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."
Umesh Chand Tiwari (supra):
"3] Therefore, it was not a routine or usual transfer order passed by the Head of the Department. But on the behest of government. Consequently RITU RAJ SINGH
11 | P a g e it requires closer scrutiny. Unfortunately except the letter no attempt has been made to demonstrate that the order was issued by government to transfer Petitioner for administrative exigency or in public interest. Even the copy of report or complaint has not been filed to establish that the decision of Government was actuated in the best interest. On the other hand the Petitioner has filed copy of report submitted by the District Magistrate on 5th May, 1986 on falling down of a bridge on Karhal Nala constructed under supervision and direction of officials of Ganga Canal, Aligarh. Serious irregularities were pointed out against one Assistant Engineer and it was recommended that he should be suspended immediately. And one Executive Engineer and another Assistant Engineer were recommended to be transferred. The recommendation were acted upon and suspension was passed in December, 1986 and transfer orders against those officials were passed in February and March 1987. But in the entire report there is no whisper against Petitioner nothing has been found against him. The direction to transfer Petitioner, therefore, was either under misapprehension or for reason which cannot be said to be reasonable. A Government, undoubtedly, is the best judge as how best the services of its employee can be utilised and at what place but the employee too has a right to seek protection that he was being victimised by resorting to transfer for oblique motive or the transfer order was unjust or unfair. Its intensity is more severe where the order is passed due to interference by higher authorities who themselves are not entitled to transfer but exercise their power unreasonably by curtailing the direction of those who are lower in hierarchy. Due to action of the Secretary the Petitioner has been put at par with the other Assistant Engineer who was found, responsible for carelessness in construction of Karhal Nala and who for this negligence was tranferred. It was certainly unfair. The direction was unjust as in absence of any disciplinary proceedings contemplated against Petitioner the very foundation of direction issued by the Secretary falls to pieces. Since the direction issued by Secretary is found to be bad the consequential order passed on it automatically falls."
10. As regards to the case laws relied upon by Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the respondents no 1 and 2:
i. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of S L Abbas (supra) it is argued that although there are provisions and guidelines for transfer, the ultimate decision of transferring an employee rests with the department which transfers such employees as per the exigency and public interest and that unless a transfer order is vitiated by malafide or some statutory provisions are violated, the same cannot be interfered. Furthermore, the court cannot interfere with the transfer orders issued in public interest and for administrative reasons. The referred portions are quoted herein below:
RITU RAJ SINGH 12 | P a g e "7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides 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........"
ii. Similarly, arguing that once the transfer order is passed, the employee concerned must be relieved and he must join at his transferred place of posting and unless violation of any statutory provisions is pointed out, the transfer order cannot be interfered with, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Dr Krishna Chandra Dubey (supra), the referred portion of which is quoted below:
"45. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any statutory provision which has been violated while passing the transfer order, which warrant this Court to interfere against the impugned order. The officer, who wanted to accommodate Dr. Dinesh Kumar at Agra, after transferring the petitioner, nor Dr. Dinesh Kumar had been impleaded before the Tribunal. Even, before this Court only Dr. Dinesh Kumar has been impleaded without seeking any permission of the Court. We fail to understand how such a course is available to the petitioner. Till today, notice has not been issued to Dr. Dinesh Kumar, though petition is pending before this Court for more that five years. Thus, the allegations of mala fides cannot be taken into consideration. It is no one's case that the order had been passed by the Authority not competent to pass the transfer order. As the transfer order was passed in 1998, there is no occasion for this Court to examine the issue further."
iii. Similarly, for the aforesaid argument, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vijay Bahadur Singh (supra), the relevant para of which is quoted below:
"11. The Supreme Court again dealt with the matter of transfer in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402. Said case arose out of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (2000 All LJ 1466), wherein the High Court had issued some general directions in the matter of transfers. The Government servants were given liberty to file representation against their transfer directly to the Chief Secretary and further direction was issued to the State Government to constitute Civil Service Board for dealing with transfers and postings of Class-I officers. The Supreme Court found that the High Court fell in serious error and such general direction will leave an impression that the Courts are attempting to take over the reign of the executive administration. The Supreme Court held that a challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are RITU RAJ SINGH 13 | P a g e Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer."
11. As regards to the case laws relied upon by Shri K P Singh, learned counsel for the newly impleaded respondent:
i. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of S.C. Saxena (supra), learned counsel has argued that in the first place, Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a Court for ventilating his grievance. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. The referred portions are quoted herein below:
"6. The appellant is before us hoping for better luck. We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first place, a Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems.
7. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed. Apart therefrom, if the appellant really had some genuine difficulty in reporting for work at Tejpur, he could have reported for duty at Amritsar where he was so posted. We too decline to believe the story of his remaining sick. Assuming there was some sickness, we are not satisfied that it prevented him from joining duty either at Tezpur or at Amritsar. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital proves this point. In the circumstances, we too are of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of the misconduct of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty."
ii. Similarly, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (supra), learned counsel has argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court held that transfer of a Government employee appointed to a cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an incidence of service. No Government RITU RAJ SINGH 14 | P a g e servant has a legal right to be posted at any particular place. The referred portion is quoted herein below:
"4. Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal tight 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. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other."
iii. Similarly, relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra), learned counsel argued that an order of transfer is part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by Court of law in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is malafide or that the service rules prohibits such transfer, or that the authorities who issued orders, were not competent to pass the orders. Even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case. The referred portion is quoted herein below:
"7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Rao v. Union of India, 1993(2) SCT 65 : (1993)1 SCC 148 : (AIR 1939 (1993 ?) SC 1236), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, 2002(1) SCT 236 : (2001)8 SCC 574: (AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3309), State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal, 2001(2) SCT 817 :
RITU RAJ SINGH
15 | P a g e (2001)5 SCC 508 : (AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1748). Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 1998(1) SCT 723 :
(1997)3 ESC 1668 : (1998) All LJ 70) and Onkarnath Tiwari v. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow, (1997) 3 ESC 1866 : (1998 All LJ 245), has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order."
iv. Similarly, learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mrs Shilpa Bose (supra) and argued that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Court ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. The relied upon portion of the judgment is quoted herein below:
"In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be RITU RAJ SINGH 16 | P a g e conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
v. Similarly, relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of S.S. Kourav (supra), learned counsel argued that Court or Tribunal are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheel of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by officers to proper place. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous transferring consideration without any factual background foundation. The referred portion is quoted herein below:
"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."
vi. Similarly, relying upon the judgment passed by the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of A Marimuthu (supra), learned counsel argued that in the said case, the Hon'ble Tribunal held that the transfer order does not become invalid if it is done on administrative grounds and the transfer can also be done on the basis of complaint received against the official concerned. The referred portion is quoted herein below:
"The administration, having regard to the nature of complaint or allegation against a government servant, may come to the conclusion that it is better that he is removed from a particular work spot and transfer may be ordered. In such circumstances, as long as the transfer itself does not visit the official concerned with adverse or penal consequences such RITU RAJ SINGH 17 | P a g e as reduction in emoluments, rank or status, any challenge of the transfer order would not merit consideration."
Similarly, for the aforesaid argument, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Anjali Pal (supra).
12. In the present matter, as is evident from the pleadings of the parties, the applicant was earlier transferred from Construction Division, PWD, Jaunpur to Provincial Division, PWD, Jaunpur in the year 2024. Later, in the proposed transfer list prepared by the respondents' department, it does not contain the name of the applicant but when the final transfer list was published, the applicant's name was included in it and footnote was appended that the applicant's transfer has been made on administrative exigency and in public interest from Jaunpur to Amroha. At one stage, a recommendation had also been sent to the competent authority to transfer the applicant from provincial division Jaunpur to any other place but the competent authority did not approve the same. A letter has also been written by the Member of Parliament to transfer the applicant on administrative ground as well as on the basis of complaint. It is also evident from the record that complaints were also received against the applicant to the department as well as the district magistrate concerned. Thereafter, after making inquiry, a fresh recommendation has been sent to the competent authority for transfer of the applicant on administrative grounds. It appears that due to this reason, applicant's transfer was effected from Jaunpur to Amroha. Applicant's stand is that his transfer has been made violating the policy and no opportunity to exercise the option was given to him. It is also argued that he was transferred to lower category division. It is also the stand of the applicant that transfer cannot be effected on the recommendation of a politician and that complaint said to have been submitted against the applicant was also not correct because the applicant has always been very punctual in his duties. It is also the contention that he was not creating any hindrance in the development scheme of the government. Rather he RITU RAJ SINGH 18 | P a g e was trying to evade the malpractices occurring in the department. Several other grounds have also been taken as have been disclosed hereinabove.
In regard to the aforesaid contentions of the applicant, it is pertinent to mention that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd Masood Ahmad (supra), has held that transfer effected on the recommendation of an MLA that by itself would not vitiate the said transfer order. It was also held that there can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer made at the recommendation of an MLA / MP would be vitiated. If the aforesaid observation recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case law is compared with the facts of the present matter, certainly one of the grounds to transfer the applicant was on the basis of recommendation of an MP but it is also correct to say that several complaints were also received against the applicant at the level of the District Magistrate concerned as well as department. Record also reveals that some inquiry was also made and thereafter the transfer order was passed.
13. So far as violation of the transfer policy is concerned, if it is not adhered strictly, the transfer order cannot be said to be illegally made on the ground of administrative exigency. As has been disclosed hereinabove, transfer is an incidence of service condition of an employee. The decision as to where an employee should be posted for smooth functioning of work is the prerogative of the employer concerned. Facts placed on behalf of the applicant are not sufficient to hold that transfer of the applicant is based on malafide. Rather, it was passed on the basis of administrative exigencies and in the public interest. If the transfer order is not malafide or violating of any statutory provision which goes to the root of the transfer policy, the transfer order cannot be said to be illegal. In the present matter, it is not the case of the applicant that the transfer order issued against him has been issued by an incompetent authority. The Tribunal has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer order. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shilpa Bose (supra) has also RITU RAJ SINGH 19 | P a g e held that even if a transfer order is passed violating the executive instructions or orders the Court ordinarily should not interfere with the order. In the present matter, effect of the transfer order passed against the applicant is only that he has been posted at Amroha in different division. There is no curtailment in pay, post or other service conditions. Thus, taking into consideration the case laws discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that transfer order passed against the applicant is not malafide and nor there has been any violation of statutory rules which strictly goes to the root of the transfer policy. Since the transfer of the applicant is not prejudicial to the public interest and it has been made on the ground of administrative exigencies, thus, I am of the considered view that no interference is required to be made at the end of this Court.
14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is dismissed being devoid of merits. The effect and operation of the impugned order stands intact. All associated MAs stand disposed of. Interim protection given to the applicant also stands vacated. No costs.
(Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (Judicial) (Ritu Raj) RITU RAJ SINGH 20 | P a g e