Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Shahul Hameed A vs Southern Railway on 8 April, 2026
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00351/2024
Wednesday this the 8th day of April 2026
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shahul Hameed.A.,
S/o.Assanar,
Aged 32 years,
Assistant Loco Pilot,
Southern Railway, Mangalore Junction,
(under orders of transfer to Chennai Division of Southern Railway)
Permanent residence : Chennali, Moolancode P.O.,
Kizhakkanchery, Palakkad - 678 684. ...Applicant
(By Advocates Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy, Mrs.Kala.T.Gopi,
Mr.Kailesh.T.Gopi, Mr.Rajul.R, Mr.Sudhir Kumar.B
& Mrs.Mamatha S Anilkumar)
versus
1. Union of India
represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Principal Chief Operations Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30'
-2-
4. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Palakkad - 678 002.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Palakkad - 678 002.
6. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations),
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Palakkad - 678 002.
7. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Chennai Division,
Headquarters Office Complex,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
8. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Chennai Division,
Headquarters Office Complex,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 600 003.
9. The Chief Crew Controller,
Southern Railway, Mangalore Junction,
Mangalore, Karnataka - 575 007. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Sreejith.N, ACGSC)
This application having been heard on 23 rd March, 2026 the
Tribunal on 8th April, 2026 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant working as an Assistant Loco Pilot at Mangalore Junction under the Palakkad Division of Southern Railway, is aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 26.06.2024 issued by the 5 th respondent A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -3- transferring him to Chennai Division. The said transfer order is produced as Annexure A-1. He has also challenged the relieving order of the same date, produced as Annexure A-2, pursuant to which he was directed to report before the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Palakkad Division, who in turn issued the consequential relieving order dated 26.06.2024, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-3. He submits that Annexure A-1 transfer order is without jurisdiction, contrary to statutory provisions and liable to be set aside.
2. Briefly the facts are as under - the applicant, a B.Tech graduate in Electronics & Communication Engineering, was initially appointed as Helper (Carriage & Wagon) in Chennai Division on 11.12.2015 through direct recruitment. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Loco Pilot in Level-2 of the Pay Matrix through General Departmental Competitive Examination and joined the post on 22.07.2019 after training. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Assistant Loco Pilot in Level-4 with effect from 29.11.2021, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-4, wherein he is placed at Sl.No.1. On his request, he was transferred to Palakkad Division on reversion as Assistant Loco Pilot in Level-2 A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -4- and joined duty on 30.06.2023, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-5. He was posted at Mangalore Junction on joining Palakkad Division.
3. The applicant is a native of Palakkad District. His wife is working as a temporary Assistant Professor at Sree Krishna Government Engineering College, Palakkad, and they have a two-year-old child. The applicant was constrained to avail emergency leave for taking care his father, who was undergoing treatment for a serious spinal condition. It is submitted that the said leave was not sanctioned. Subsequently, following an altercation with Shri.Suresh Kumar, Chief Crew Controller on 27.02.2024, a major penalty charge memorandum dated 28.05.2024 was issued, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-6. The applicant denied the allegations and sought relevant documents vide letter dated 04.06.2024, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-7. While matters stood thus the applicant applied for one day's leave on 22.06.2024 due to urgent domestic reasons concerning his child. Upon return, he was served with the transfer order at Annexure A-1 and relieving order at Annexure A-2, which was actually handed over to him only on 25.06.2024.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -5-
4. At the outset the applicant submits that in terms of the Railway Board orders on the subject, a Railway employee against whom major penalty proceedings are pending should not be transferred, as the disciplinary authority initiating and concluding proceedings must remain the same. The Railway Board order RBE No.120/2005 dated 18.07.2005 revealing these facts are produced as Annexure A-8. Besides, he also submits that in terms of Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.I (IREC Vol.I) inter-establishment transfers can be ordered only by the President or by authorities duly delegated with such power. The authorities to whom the power is delegated for transfer is contained in Appendix VI of the IREC Vol.I. He also submits that the authority competent is defined under Rule 103(11) of the IREC Vol.I to mean the authorities who have been included in the aforementioned Appendix VI. These are produced as Annexure A-9. In the instant case, it is contended that though it has been mentioned in the transfer order that it has been issued with the approval of the competent authority, the designation of the authority who is said to be competent has not been disclosed in Annexure A-1 order. He submits that Annexure A-1 order has not been issued either by the General Manager or the authority to whom the power has been delegated in terms of Appendix VI, which in the instant case is A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -6- the Head of the Department. He contends that his Head of the Department is the Principal Chief Operations Manager who is headquartered at Chennai and who is having the control over both the posts ie., in Chennai as well as in Palakkad Division. No other lower authority including DRM has control over both the posts together. Hence, the order of transfer is ultravirus of the statutory rules.
5. Besides, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 732 and subsequent Railway Board instructions produced at Annexure A-10 and Annexure A-11, transfers must be based on recommendations of a Placement Committee. The impugned order is silent on this aspect, rendering it arbitrary and illegal.
6. The applicant has also challenged the transfer order stating that he was transferred to Palakkad Division only on 30.06.2023 on request and has not completed the prescribed minimum tenure. The premature transfer back to Chennai is unjustified and contrary to established norms. The applicant has been reverted and transferred in the capacity as Assistant Loco Pilot in Level-2, which would adversely affect his A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -7- seniority in Chennai Division, placing him below several juniors. Even otherwise, his seniority, if at all transferred, would reckon only from 30.06.2023 causing grave prejudice. It is further contended by the applicant that the transfer has been effected as a measure of penalty. It is argued that transfer cannot be used as a substitute for disciplinary action. Once proceedings have been initiated, there is no justification for transferring him to Chennai Division. Besides, transfer under Rule 226 must be based on exigencies of service. No such exigency is explained in the impugned order. The plea of administrative grounds is vague, unsupported, and arbitrary. Hence, the applicant submits that Annexure A-1 (transfer order), Annexure A-2 (relieving order) and Annexure A-3 (consequential order) are without jurisdiction, contrary to statutory provisions and Railway Board instructions, arbitrary and discriminatory and was issued without application of mind. He prayed that the same be quashed and set aside.
7. The respondents have filed reply statement wherein they have stated that the applicant, after joining the Mangalore Junction depot under Palakkad Division, was involved in multiple instances of indiscipline and misconduct. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -8- were initiated against him under the Disciplinary & Appeal Rules (D&AR). Within a short span of approximately one year from his joining in Palakkad Division, he was issued three charge memoranda in Standard Form No.11 (SF-11) for minor penalties and one charge memorandum in Standard Form No.5 (SF-5) for major penalty proceedings. Copies of the charge memoranda dated 28.02.2024, 28.05.2024, and 21.06.2024 are collectively produced as Annexure R-1 series.
8. It is submitted that a section of Loco Pilots in Palakkad Division, in violation of the applicable rules and regulations, resorted to a strike raising unlawful demands and imposing self-declared working conditions. The applicant actively participated in the said strike and also encouraged other staff of the Mangalore depot to join the agitation. Specifically, on 11.06.2024 and 12.06.2024, the applicant refused to accept duty assignments and absented himself from duty as part of the strike, even submitting written refusals. The respondents rely on the provisions of the Hours of Employment Regulations (HOER) and Railway Board letter dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure R-2), which stipulate that running staff may be rostered for up to four consecutive night duties and after availing the prescribed rest, the employee is duty-bound to A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -9- accept assigned work. There is no provision permitting refusal of duty on the ground of having performed two prior night duties once rest requirements are fulfilled. A copy of the Railway Board Letter is produced as Annexure R-2. Thus, the refusal of the applicant to perform duty was in clear violation of the governing rules.
9. The respondents submit that the conduct of the applicant was detrimental to discipline within the organization. Despite repeated opportunities and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, he failed to correct his behaviour. In these circumstances, the administration found it difficult to effectively utilize his services within the framework of applicable rules. Accordingly, a conscious administrative decision was taken to review the earlier approval granted for his transfer from Chennai Division to Palakkad Division and to repatriate him to his parent division, i.e., Chennai Division. Transfer of the applicant from Mangalore Junction of the Palakkad Division to the Chennai Division was made purely on administrative grounds and in the interest of public service by the competent authority following the due procedure in processing the inter-divisional transfer.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -10-
10. It is contended that the Inter Division Transfer of the applicant, on administrative grounds, was processed for approval of the competent authority DRM/PGT i.e., the 4th respondent. Based on the approval from the 4th respondent, the transfer proposal was forwarded to the 7th respondent i.e., DRM/MAS for approval. After getting the approval of both the DRMs, the proposal of transfer of the applicant on administrative grounds was sent to the 2 nd respondent ie., PCPO/MAS for further approval. However, the same has been returned by PCPO/MAS vide letter dated 19.06.2024 stating that, in terms of Sl.No.10 (B) of Model Schedule of Powers (SOP) 2018 issued by the Railway Board, DRM has got full powers in respect of transfer in the post which are divisionally controlled and advised that the matter may be dealt at divisional level. A copy of the letter dated 19.06.2024 of the PCPO/MAS is produced as Annexure R-3. A copy of the relevant extract of Model Schedule of Powers (SOP) 2018, is produced as Annexure R-4.
11. As per the above instructions received from PCPO/MAS, the 5th respondent issued the Annexure A-l transfer order, in terms of which the applicant was relieved from Mangalore Junction depot on 24.06.2024 vide Annexure A-2 and reported in the office of Sr.DPO/PGT on A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -11- 26.06.2024. Later, he was relieved from the Palakkad Division on 26.06.2024 vide Annexure A-3 with instructions to report at the office of the 8th respondent on 06.07.2024 after availing 10 days joining time from 26.06.2024 to 05.07.2024 as requested by him. Subsequently, the applicant approached this Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the transfer. The Tribunal directed that he be permitted to continue in the same post, and accordingly, the operation of Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-3 have been kept in abeyance.
12. The respondents submit that the applicant's earlier transfer from Chennai to Palakkad Division was granted on request, based on the expectation that he would adhere to the rules and discharge his duties responsibly. However, in view of repeated acts of indiscipline, defiance of lawful orders, participation in illegal strike activities and failure to reform despite disciplinary action, his continuation in Palakkad Division would adversely affect discipline and set a wrong precedent among other employees. Therefore, in the interest of maintaining administrative efficiency and organizational discipline, the decision to transfer him back to Chennai Division is justified, lawful and necessary.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -12-
13. A rejoinder has been filed by the applicant wherein it is stated that the charge memos were issued to him out of sheer vengeance and at the instance of his immediate supervisor ie., the Chief Crew Controller, Mangalore Junction. He alleged that the charge memos issued to him were fabricated one and the respondents have illegally made certain corrections to the same. He reiterated that the respondents ought not have transferred him during the pendency of the major penalty proceedings consistent with the provisions of the Railway Board orders. Further, he asserts that once a transfer order is issued and on the basis of which he joined the Palakkad Division on loss of seniority from Chennai Division, there is no provision to review the consent given to him. It has been argued that the DRM is not competent to transfer him to Chennai Division as such power lies with the General Manager or authorities controlling both posts. Annexure R-4 produced by the respondents show that powers of the DRM are limited to posts within his control/same seniority unit. Since the transfer is between different divisions, DRM lacks authority under Rule 103(II) read with Appendix VI of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Hence, the transfer order is factually and legally unsustainable.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -13-
14. We have heard both sides and perused the pleadings available on record. The first ground on which the applicant has challenged the Annexure A-1 order is that it has not been issued by the competent authority ie., PCPO/MAS or the General Manager and therefore the same is non-est and improper. If we go through Annexure R-7 Notesheet read with Annexure R-4 delegation of powers and Annexure R-3 communication from the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, it is clear that the PCPO has categorically stated that in terms of Sl.No.10(B) of Model Schedule of Powers 2018, the DRM has got full powers as clearly indicated in Annexure R-4 and Annexure R-6 Notesheet which clearly indicate that both the DRMs who have the administrative control over the persons and have agreed that the transfer was necessary. Hence to hold that the Annexure A-1 transfer order is in violation of the rules does not appeared to be correct. It has been argued very vehemently by the applicant that Rule 103(II) read with Appendix VI of the IREM contained the delegation of powers and the authorities to whom the power is delegated for transfer the Railway servant from one post to another in respect of post under their control. It has been argued that on this basis only the PCPO would have powers in this case. This is contradicted by the PCPO A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -14- who has said that in cases of posts which are divisionally controlled, the DRM has got full powers of transfer and it is a fact that both DRMs, ie., DRMs of both segments which have controlled over the posts are in full agreement to transfer him. Therefore, the first contention cannot be upheld.
15. The second ground which has been taken by the applicant is that the transfer is on administrative ground is contradictory to facts as the transfer cannot be a substitute for disciplinary action. The Master Circular No.66 on penalties and disciplinary authorities, which is produced as Annexure R-5, gives an explanation that while the Schedules refer to the level of Disciplinary Authority, the authority who actually functions as Disciplinary Authority can be none other than the one under whose administrative control the delinquent employee works. If an employee is transferred during the course of disciplinary proceedings against him, then his Disciplinary Authority would also change accordingly and will be with reference to the new post held by him. Also there can be only one Disciplinary Authority for an employee, eg., for an operating staff, who is under the administrative control of Divisional Operating A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -15- Manager (DOM), only the DOM can act as Disciplinary Authority, even if the misconduct pertains to violation of commercial rules or safety rules and not Divisional Commercial Manager or Divisional Safety Officer.
16. The third ground which has been taken by the applicant that he was transferred from Chennai Division to Palakkad Division while working in the higher post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot in Pay Matrix Level 4 on 30.06.2023 and within a year he was transferred back to Chennai Division as Assistant Loco Pilot in Pay Matrix Level 2, which is arbtirary and discriminatory. However, inter divisional transfers are at the post where the individual was working. The applicant is transferred from the post of Senior Assistant Loco Pilot to Assistant Loco Pilot at his own request at bottom seniority in a direct recruitment post when he came to Palakkad. The transfer from Palakkad to Chennai on administrative ground would be at the level at which he is working, if it is a post which is a direct recruitment at bottom seniority, as these are two independent actions and not a reversal of an earlier action. Therefore, he can only be transferred at the level of Assistant Loco Pilot. However, since he is being repatriated within a year of inter-
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -16- divisional transfer, he is free to represent before the proper authority for restoration of seniority and promotion and same should be considered sympathetically.
17. Finally the contention of the applicant that the transfer is a shortcut for imposition of penalty actually cannot be upheld because as per Rule 16 actions which have been actually disposed of penalty has already been imposed and therefore it cannot be held that it is a substitute for penal action. The argument raised in appeal at Annexure A-14 on the various charge sheets would be an independent cause of action against a disciplinary proceedings and cannot be the subject matter of challenge against the transfer.
18. The case laws which have been produced by both sides have been perused. Fundamentally, the stand taken by the Court is that transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right to interdict the same unless there are materials to suggest that the order of transfer is vitiated by mandatory statutory violations or malafides and transfer can be effected on administrative grounds as long as it is intended to aid proper administration and to subserve internal discipline. When an A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -17- employee is transferred to maintain a smooth running of an organization, it is not to be understood as a punishment as the element of punishment is absent therein. We have to examine here whether the behaviour of the applicant has been such as to inspire confidence in his devotion to duty and discipline and it appears that the respondents have sufficient grounds to question the same. Hence the O.A fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 8th day of April, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30'
-18-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00351/2024
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the office order No.J/PR 27/2024 dated 24.06.2024 issued by the 5th respondent.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the office order No.MJ 50 dated 24.06.2024 issued by the 9th respondent.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the relieving order No.J/P.676/V/PR/IDT/IRT dated 26.06.2024 issued by the 5 th respondent.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the order bearing No.M/P(1E)LRG/155/2021 dated 29.11.2021 issued by the 8 th respondent.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the order bearing No.J/P,676/V/PR/IDT/Vol.XXVII dated 03.07.2023 issued by the 5 th respondent.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the memorandum bearing No.J/E(OP)/226/DAR/SF5/15215MS1554 dated 28.05.2024 issued by the 6th respondent.
7. Annexure A-7 - A copy of the reply submitted by the applicant dated 04.06.2024.
8. Annexure A-8 - A copy of the Railway Board order bearing RBE No.120/2005 dated 18.07.2005.
9. Annexure A-9 - A copy of the Appendix VI of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I as published by the Railway Board.
10. Annexure A-10 - A copy of the order bearing No.E(O)III2014/PL/03 dated 10.06.2014 issued by the Railway Board.
11. Annexure A-11 - A copy of the order bearing RBE No.109/2015 dated 21.09.2015.
12. Annexure A-12 - A copy of the letter bearing No.J/E.OP/226/DAR/Abs/MAJN1297 dated 28.02.2024 issued by the 6 th respondent.
A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30' -19-
13. Annexure A-13 - A copy of the Appendix VI of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.I.
14. Annexure A-14 - A copy of the appeal submitted by the applicant dated 16.05.2025 to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager-II, Palakkad.
15. Annexure R-1(colly) - Copies of the memo of charges dated 28.02.2024, 28.05.2024, 21.06.2024.
16. Annexure R-2 - A copy of the Railway Board Letter No.2023/TT- 1/76/Staff/07/duty hours dated 12.10.2023.
17. Annexure R-3 - A copy of the letter dated 19.06.2024 of the PCPO/MAS.
18. Annexure R-4 - A copy of the relevant extract of Model Schedule of Powers (SOP) 2018.
19. Annexure R-5 - A copy of the relevant extract of Master Circular No.66.
20. Annexure R-6 - A copy of the sanction order of the DRM/PGT dated 13.06.2024.
21. Annexure R-7 - A copy of the sanction order of the DRM/MAS dated 14.06.2024.
22. Annexure R-8 - A copy of the extract of Rule 227 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I. _______________________________ A S Peethambaran 2026.04.08 14:59:43+05'30'