Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
K V Madhusudanrao vs Central Railway on 1 April, 2024
j OASIA2023 Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai. O.A314/2023 Dated this "ose __ the Oe day of 2024. Coram : MrSbri Krishna, Member (Administrative) KV. Madhusudanrag, Age 48 years, working as Goods Supervisor, Central Railway, Sangli, Residing at: TLNG S44/2A, B21, Telagu Church, Samata Nagar, Miraj, Sangli -416 410. . Applicant. ( By Advocate Shri V.A. Nagrani ). Versus 1. Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway Head Quarters Office Mumbai, Mumbai -- 400001. bo The Divisional Railway Manager (P), Central Railway, Pune Civision, Pune - 411 021. .. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri NUK. Rajpurohit ). Order reserved ons 37.03.2024 Order pronounced On ¢ oh. 2024 ORDER
The applicant has fled this O.A. to challenge his transter from . Sangli Goods Office to Urli Booking Office and has claimed the following fom 2 OA 3142023 reliefsi-
as a. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the order dated 30.01.2023 holding that the same is passed in lieu of punishment with all consequential benefits.
b. Costs of the application be provided for.
c. Any other and further order as this Hon'bie Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the ease be passed."
2. MrV.A. Nagrani, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned transfer order dated 30° January, 2023 is ex-facie legal, arbitrary and ab-initio void as the same has been issued as a punitive measure and, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the transfer of the applicant is in gross violation of the Transfer Policy, wherein the applicant has the tenure of 04 years once he is holding the sensitive post. We further submitted that the applicant is transferred within the short span of one year. He farther submitted that the order dated 30° January, 2023 makes it clear that the applicant is transferred in liew of punishment which is not permissible in the eyes of law and, therefore, he prayed for stay of the order dated 30° January, 2023 and requested that the applicant be allowed to work at Sangli Goods Office.
3. The applicant was present during the course of the hearing. Rt Load con) based fen a a ok had was submitted that the applicant belongs from Mira] and his family resides there. [t is submitted that the applicant was initially appointed on compassionate grounds at Mira} in district Sangli as Commercial Clerk on ii June, 1997, which is a sensitive post. Mira} is im Pune Division of Central Railways. He worked at Miraj for 10 years from 1997 to 2007. He was transferred to Jaisinghpur in District Kolhapur in the year 2007, where he worked for one year Then again he came back to Miraj on request transfer in the year 2008. He again worked at Miraj on a sensittve post for 8 years from 2008 to 2016, In the year 2016, he was wansferred to Sangli where he worked for one year. Again in the year 4017, he was posted to Mira} where he worked for a further period af 05 years. On 30° January, 023 he was posted to Sangli. He was posted to Sangli vide order dated 25° January, 2022 on his own request. The applicant has joined at new place of posting on 99.06.2023 and working there since then. MrV.A. Nagrant, learned counsel for the applicant placed retiance on the following cases:
iy) Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 392.
fii} Prashant J Hualyaikar V's. Union of india and Others, OA No.304/2014, CAL, Mumbai Bench.
(ii) Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, OA No. 440/2016, CAT, 4 OA314/2025 Mumbai Bench, Mumbai.
4. On notice the respondents have filed their written reply and opposed the O.A. It is submitted that the O.A, is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It has been submitted that the applicant was posted at Miraj and Sangli which are 7 kms away from each other for 25 years out of total service of 26 years, It was submitted that transfers are incidental to the service conditions of a Government employee and applicant was liable to be transferred anywhere in Pune Division.
5. Mr. Rajpurohit submitted that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Semesh Tiwari (supra) is not applicable to the facts involved in the case at hand. He submitted that in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) there was mere allegations made in an anonymous complaint. He submitted that the applicant has been transferred because of derailment. He submitted that the submission made by Mr-Nagrani that the applicant was transferred as a punishment is not correct as the order by which the applicant was given a minor penalty of withholding one increment for one year does not talk of transfer. He submitted that the transfer was made to maintain administrative efficiency and the same was in public mterest as safety is of paramount importance.
6. MrRajpurohit further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme 5 OAS 1A 2023 Court in the case of State of UR & Ors. Vs. Gohardhan Lal, (AIR 2004 Supreme Couri 2165) has held as under:
"2 Tt is too lafe in the day jor any Government servant fo contend thai once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he shaulel continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an emplayee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the canira, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown fo be an owtcome of a malafide exercise af power or wWolauve of any statutory provision fan Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not eompetent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine far any or every type of grievance sought to be made, Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies al best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress buf carmmot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant ta amy 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 ef any career prospects such as sentarily, seale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in, transgression of adminisirative guidelines cannot also he interfered with, as they do not confer any legaily enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides ar is made in violation of any statutory PFOVISION, 9 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 Appellate Authorities over such orders, which + sould assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirement 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 ax to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not io be entertained on the mere making of it or an consideration
6 Q > hyd yew Sad tha cr.
Ba ty borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, mo interference could ore inarily be made with an order of transfer."
7, MrNK. Rajpurohit, firther submitted that if a person is allowed to continue on the same / adjoining place for such a long period of time of 28 years out of 26 years of service, the public interest would suffer and safety of the Railway will be affected. He submitted that the applicant was issued a minor penalty for derailment at Miraj. He submitted that the applicant was issued chargesheet on the recommendations of Safety Branch of Railway and was awarded minor penalty of stoppage of the annual increment for the period of one year which shall not adversely affect the future increments. He filed appeal before the competent authority on Zt"
February, 2023 which is pending.
8. The counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) Mrs. Shilpi Bose And Others vs. State of Bihar And Others, AIR 1991 SC 532;
ay In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993} 4 SCC 357, Gib In the case of State of M.P And Another Vs. S.S. Kouray and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 270, ay) In the case of National Hydroelectric Pawer Corporation Ltd.
Vs, Shri Bhagwan, Appeal (Civil) 10935-1096 of 2001;
iv} State of U.P And Ors. Vs, Gobardhan Lal, 2004-(003)CLR- HO78-SC;
fv} State of U.P And Anr. Vs. Siva Ram And Anr, in Appeal ECivil} 5008/2004 dated 05.08.2004;
ivi) In the case of Major General JK. Bansal V's. Union of India and others, Appeal (Civil) 5189/2005 decided on 23.08.2005, and
(vi) In the case of Shri G. Nageshwara Rao S/o G.S..... Vs. The Govt. of India Rep. By its... decided on 22.08.2007, 9, Heard both the parties at length and perused the pleadings and documents filed on record.
10. It is seen that the applicant was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of his father. He is a resident of Mira} and was pasted at Mirai for 10 years from 1997 to 2007 in a sensitive post, He was transferred to Jaisinghpur in District Kolhapur only for one year. He again came back to Miraj on his own request in the year 2008 and was posted there for next 08 years. He was transferred to Sangli in the year 2016 for one year. He again came to be posted at Miraj in the year 2017 and 8 OA.314/2023 continued till there for $ years. He was posted to Sangli on his own request vide order dated 25" January, 2022 where he continued til 30° January, 4023. It is seen that Miraj and Sangli are adjoining to each other at a distance of 7 km. Thus except for one year, the applicant has been at Miraj and Sangli for almost 25 years. The applicant has been twice accommodated by the respondents as per his own request. The applicant has worked on sensitive posts all along these years.
il. The applicant has been transferred vide impugned order dated 30° January, 2023 from Sangli Goods Office to Urli, which is 33 km away from Pune. Thus the transfer is within the same Division. The applicant is a Group "C" employee. A Group "C" employee can be posted to any station ina Division.
12. Mr.V.A. Nagrani, leamed counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of this Bench in the case of Karan Singh (supra).
13. I find that the facts of that case are not applicable to the case of the applicant. In that case the applicant was a whistle blower, he was awarded and granted monetary rewards but he was transferred several times within a short period of time. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of that case, this Tribunal has quashed the transfer order. However, it will be relevant to reproduce the observations of the Tribunal as eiven in para 2 of that order.
y OA 312023 Para 2 reads thus:
"Transfer in Government service is necessary for the purpose of preventing Empire building when a person who is in close contact with the public is allowed fo May m a particular post Jor a longer period than is absolutely necessary. He gels wnnecessary conection which is prejudicial to the public interest. In fact, in Defence i has heen made mandatory that any office having public contact will nat he allowed to stay for more than three years Ina particular station or in a particular position. it is a Laudable decision taken by the Defence Ministry. The Ratlways also must think about this and all those who had completed their tenure wnder the rules nist necessarily be transferred out. But this transfer does not appear to be any administrative exigencies requiring disturbance of the applicant at this tune."
id. 1 find that in the case of State of UP And Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004-(003)CLR-0078-SC). 'The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under ?
"8 Te is tog late in the day for any Government Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or pasiion, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the iaw governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transjer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or viclative of any statutory provision fan dct or Rule) or passed by an authority not conipetent to do s0, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a mater of course ar routine for any or every hype of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines jor regulating transfers or containing mansjer policies af best may afford an opportunity fo 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 & partieniar 10 OAS14/2023 afficer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the offietal status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale af 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 rights, unless, ay noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or Is made in vielation of any statutory provision.
9 4 ehallenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts ar Tribunals as though they are 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 inspite confidence in the Court or are based an concrete materials ana ought not to be entertained on the mere making of if or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, na interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer"
15. Similarly in the case Mrs. Shipi Bose And Others vs. State af Bihar And Others, (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 4 has held as under:
"4, In aur opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasans unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the ather he is liable to be transferred jrom one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even If a transfer Vp OA314/2023 Order is passed in violation of executive Instructions oF Orders, the Courts ordinarily should net 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 coud its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos In the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over loaked these aspects IN interfering with the transfer Orders."
16. in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. SL. Abbas, {supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 6 and 7 of the judgment has held as undert-
age '6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule Hl says that "the whole time of @ Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority". Fundamental Rule 13 says that "the President? may transfer a Government servant from one post te another". That the respondent ts liable to transfer ampwhere 1n India is not in dispute. [ts not ihe case of the respondent that the arder of his eransfer 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 inpnediate superior whe had nothing to do with his transfer All he says is that he should nat be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because hts health had suffered a setback some time ago. He elies upon certain execulive instructions issued by the Government in thet behalf Those mstructions are in the nature of guidelines, They do not have statutory force.
?, Whe should be transferred where, is @ matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vintated by mala fides ar ts made in violation af cay startory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the 12 OA.314/2023 transfer, there 1s MO doubt, the autharity must keep in nund the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect 10 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."
Similarly in the case State of M.P And Another Vs. 8.5.
Kourav and Others, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Para 4 and 6 heid as under-
"4 Tt is contended for the respondent that the respondents had already worked at Jagdaipur from 1982 to 1989 and when he was transferred to Bhopal, there was no justification to refransfer him again to Jagdalpur. We cannot appreciate these grounds, T'he courts or tribunals are not appellate forums 0 decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals are not expected to interdict the warking of the administrative system by transferring the officers fo proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitigted either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that an the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. ' Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place.
eas
6. It is further contended ihat in an unfortunate situation the respondent's wife committed suicide leaving three children and he would suffer extreme hardship if he has to work in the tribal area. This Court cannot go into that question of relative hardship. It would he for the administration to consider the facts of a given case ane mitigate the real hardship. ht would be for the administration fo consider the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship in the 3 OA 3142023 interest of good and efficient administration. If there is amy such hardship, it would be open to the respondent to make a representation to the Government and it is for ihe the Government te consider and take appropriate decision in that behalf." | is. Similarly in the case of In the case of Netlunal Hydreelectric Power Corporation Lid, Vs. Shri Bhagwan, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"The orders of transfer came to be challenged on the ground that they were contrary to the settlement entered inia between the Corporation and its employees Union and the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), 1946. Motive.to penalize for Trade Unions activities of the respondents was alse averred to be yel another reason, Per contra, fhe appellant ~ Corporation contended thai the plea of alleged malafides is baseless and that after drawing the necessary transfer allowance and other allowance for giving effect to the order of transfer, tt is not given to and as @ matter of faci, the respondents were estopped from challenging the orders of transfer. The transfer was said to be consistent with the terms and conditions embodied in the letter of appointment as well as recruitment rules framed for the Corporation employees, according 10 whieh every employee 15 Hable ta be transferred and posted at any place within its service and in the absence of any bar as such for being 30 transferred from the Corporate Office to the Project and vice versa. By way of replication, their case reiterated by the employees. The High Court was of the view that the Corporate Office and the Projects constitute different units for purposes of seniority, as disclosed from the relevant rules, and that, therefore, an employee borne on a particular senioruy unit cannot be transferred to another seniority unit, except with his consent. The plea based on the terms and conditions embodied in the letters of appointment came fa be rejected for the reason that the letters of appointment have to he read in consonance with the rules and if so done, the transfers under challenge cannot be upheld, having regard to what the High Court was viewed to be the bar contained in the rules against an employee from one seniority [0 14 OA314/20233 another seniority unit. The plea of malafides urged on behalf af the employees and the one based on estappel urged on behalf of the Corparation came to be rejected, while allowing the Writ Petitions by quashing the orders of transfer. Hence, these appeals.
Heard Shri B. Datia, learned senior Advocate for the appellant Corpotration and Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned senior Advocate, for the respondent-employees. le was urged for the appellant --
Corporation that transfer being an incident of service, ne exception could be taken to the impugned orders of transfer, which came to be made according ta the appellant im accordance with law and in public interest, particularly in the absence of any proof of malafides or contravention of any specific prohibitery provision in this regard, rendering the employees Inunune from such transfers. Rule 41] of the Seniority Rules was, according 10 the appellant, misconstrued completely giving & go-bye to R 3-14 of the Recruitment Rules anda praper consiruction of the same would really support the stand of the Corperation to justify the transfers In the ease on hand The assumption made by the High Court on the alleged grievance of loss of seniority is said to he werwarranted having regard fo the faet that the Projects to which the respondents were transferred being new, HO such grievance could have been countenanced. It was alse urged that the Government of India, from time to time, assigned new Projects to which the respondents were transferred being mew, RO such grievance could have been countenanced it was also urged that the Government of India, from time to time, assigned new Projects lo the Corporation for being exeeuied and implemented and the above transfers become absolutely necessary for undertaking such new Projects in order to adjust the staff from various Projects or Corporate Offices where they were either not required or found to be surplus and so far as the case on hand is concerned, staff from the lowest level, namely, Class-I}, to the level of General Managers have been transferred, offering a package deal under which they were permitted to not only keep their families at the previous place of posting or any place of their choice in India entitling them to House Rent Allowance of that Station, but also giving them in addition, special House Rent Allowance of ten per cent of presently drawn basic pay, giving them, at the same time, iemporary acconunodation at the project site free of cost, besides granting them other beneyits "gene Dart OAS 14/2023 Hke site compensatory allowance, monthly ad hec monetary assistance, Pee transport of essential commodities to the site and mess facilities, etc. More than one and a half times the insurance coverage that they would have got in the previous place of posting also become due to them for which the premium is said to be borne by the Corporation, in addition to the travel facilities to the mentbers of the farnily.
The learned senior counsel for the respondents, while adopting the reasoning of the High Court in the order under appeal, strenuously urged that as per the Sentority Rules, which came into force wef. L&.1876, the Corporation Office and the Projects constituted different units Jor purposes of seniority and consequently, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the transfer from one unit fo the other unit could not have been made without consent af the employee eoncerned to his detriment in respect of his rights of seniority, Argued the learned senior counsel further that the construction placed by the High Court on the scope of Rule 4.11 af the Seniority Rules is correct and that the transfer envisaged therein related to the transfer af employees from one cadre to the other cadre in the same Office, Project or Unit and not otherwise, since the Corporate Ojfice and Projects are distinct and separate entities jor the purpose of seniority. The learned senior counsel for the respondents repeatedly urged that the rights of the employees iA respect of their seniority would be adversely affected by the inipugned transfers and, therefore, no interference is called for in jhese appeals.
On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the relevant rules to which our attention has been ivited to, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the impugned orders of transfer. it is by now well- settled and often reiterated by this Court that no Government servant or emplayee of public Underiaking has any legal right to be pasted forever at any one particular place since transfer of @ particular eniployed appointed to the class or category of transferable pests fram one place to other is not only an incident, but a eondition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown fp be an a 16 OA.314/20383 outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer. the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the Management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. On the facts and circumstances of the cases before us, we are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that Rule 4.2.1 of the Seniority Rules interdicts any transfer of the employees jrom one Office or Project or Unit to any one of the other as long as the seniority of such an employee ts protected based on the length of service with reference to the date of promotion or appointment to the grade concerned irrespective of the date of transfer. We also consider it to he a mere submission in vain, the one urged on the basis of alleged adverse consequences detrimental to their seniority resulting fram such transfer In the facts of the present cases, at ary rate, 0 such result is bound to occur since the project undertaken ta which the respondents have been transferred ix itself a new one and, therefore, we see nO rhyine or reason it the alleged grievance.
Consequently, we are of the view that with the rejection of the plea of malafides by the High Court, no further interference could have been thought of by the High Court in these cases. We are also informed that the respondents have since joined at the Project site and are serving there."
19. In the case of State of UP And Anr. Vs. Siva Rant and Anr.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articies 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution' had gone into the question as 10 whether the transfer was in the interest af public service, That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned No government servant or employee of a public undertaking fas any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts pote Sug:
GABE 2023 from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shawn fo be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer. the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with suck orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the emplover/managemeni, a8 against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hyiroeleciric Power Corporation Lid v Shri Bhagwan and Anr (2008 (8) SCC 374).
The above position was recently highlighted in Union of india and others v. Janardhan Dehanath and another (2004 fg) SCC 243). 2 has to be noted that the High Court proceeded on the basis ax if the transfer was connected with the departmental proceedings. There was not an iota of material to arrive at the conclusion. No mala fides could be attributed as the order was purely on administrative grounds and in public interest.
It view of the settled position Mm law the judgment of the High Court is Indefensible and is set aside."
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, [do not find any infirmity in the transfer fthe applicant as he has already worked for 25 years out of total service of 26 years in the same area of Sangli and Mira) which are under the vicinity of 7 iems, The contention of Mr.Nagrani that the applicant could not have been
-ansferred as he was posted on a sensitive post which allows a tenure of 4 "years is not correct as 4 years is a maximum tenure. There is no rule which 18 OA314/2023 provides that an employee which provides that an employee working on a sensitive post cannot be transferred on administrative grounds, Transfer of applicant is an incidence of service. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate violation of any statutory rules. No malafide has been alleged. Therefore, there is no reason for this Tribunal to interfere with the impugned transfer order, The applicant has already joined at his new place of posting on 22.06.2023 and working there since 22.06.2023.
21. In view of above facts, the O.A. is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to casts.
(Stiri Krishna) Member (A).
H