Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Rupam Sen vs Audit on 22 May, 2025
1 o.a. 350.00063.2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. O.A. 350/00063/2022 Heard on 19.05.2025
Date of order: 22.05.2025
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
SHRI RUPAM SEN, Son of Late Prohlad Chandra
Sen, aged about 53 years, residing at 75,
Lalababu Sayar Road, Bally (M), Belur Math,
District-Howrah-711202 and at present working
to the post of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer
(Grade-I) posted at in the office of the Executive
Engineer-I, Lower Damodar Irrigation Division,
Singur, Hooghly-712409 under the supervision
and control of the Principal Accountant General
(A&E), West Bengal, Treasury Buildings, 2,
Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001;
........ Applicant.
- VERSUS-
1. UNION OF INDIA service through the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Pocket
9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-
110124.
2. THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
OF INDIA, Indian Audit and Accounts
Department, Pocket 9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya
Marg, New Delhi-110124.
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65=
DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone=
ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8
dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89
Hansda
b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 o.a. 350.00063.2022
3. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(A&E), West Bengal, Treasury Buildings, 2,
Govt. Place (West), Kolkata 700 001;
4. THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A/Cs
& VLC) in the office of the Principal Accountant
General (A&E), West Bengal, Treasury Building,
2, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-700001.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-I, Lower Damodar
Irrigation Division, Singur, Hooghly-712409.
....... Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr. P.C. Das, Counsel
Ms. T. Maity, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Basu, Counsel
ORDER
In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub -Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single Member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application, seeking the following relief(s):
"a) To quash and/or set aside the impugned order of transfer dated 23.12.2021 in respect of the applicant only wherein the name of the applicant appeared at Serial No. 32 in the said order of transfer whereby your applicant Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3 o.a. 350.00063.2022 has been transferred from Lower Damodar Irrigation Division, Singur, Hooghly to Teesta Canal Division No.1 Islampur without routed through a Placement Committee in violation of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TSR Subramanian and in gross violation of the Office Memo of DOPT dated 30th September, 2009 and also in utter violation of the office memo 06.08.2021 issued by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi in respect of posting of husband and wife at same station being Annexure A-6 of this original application.
b) To declare that the impugned order of transfer in respect of the applicant is grossly violation of the mandatory Office Memo of DOPT dated 30th September, 2009 and also in utter violation of the office memo 06.08.2021 issued by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi in respect of posting of husband and wife at same station and also violates the solemn and binding order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TSR Subramanian which was not routed through a placement committee. Therefore such order of transfer cannot be sustainable in the eye of law."
3. The applicant is an employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and is posted as Senior Divisional Accounts Officer in the office of Executive Engineer-I, Lower Damodar Irrigation Division, Singur. He is aggrieved due to his transfer from his present place of posting to Teesta Canal Division No. I, Islampur, vide order dated 23.12.2021. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, he filed this Original Application seeking the above mentioned relief(s).
When the matter was heard at admission stage on 19.01.2022, this Tribunal had directed that if the applicant has not been released, he shall not be released till the next date of listing. The said interim order was extended by the Tribunal from time to time and is still continuing.
Digitally signed by DhanuRam HansdaDN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4 o.a. 350.00063.2022
4. Heard the Learned Counsel for both the sides and considered the material on record.
5. At hearing, the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants are summarised below.
a) The wife of the applicant is an employee of the Government of West Bengal under the Directorate of ESI (MB) Scheme, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal and is working in the post of Staff Nurse Grade-II, ESI Hospital Manicktala. The applicant had earlier been transferred from the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD Uttar Dinajpur Division, Raiganj to his present post, vide order dated 16.07.2019. The applicant had prior on the issue of the impugned transfer order had submitted his options for his preferred stations of posting in the prescribed proforma on 03.11.2021 whereby he had given his option for posting at Kolkata, Baruipur and Diamond Harbour. However, his options were not considered and he was posted, vide the impugned transfer order dated 23.12.2021, Teesta Canal Division No. I, Islampur.
c) The impugned transfer order is a violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TSR Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2013 (15) SCC 732 since the proposal for his transfer was not routed through one Placement Committee. Further, the Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 o.a. 350.00063.2022 impugned transfer is a gross violation of the Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel & Training dated 30th September, 2009 regarding posting of husband and wife at the same station. The impugned transfer order also violates the instructions issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, vide Office Memorandum dated 06.08.2021.
d) The applicant had submitted a representation dated 30.12.2021 to the competent authority against the impugned transfer order. However, the said representation was not agreed to by the respondents.
6. At hearing, the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents are summarised below:
a) The applicant had earlier been transferred, vide order dated 30.01.2019 from Midnapore H.W. Division to Uttar Dinajpur Division, PWD Raiganj which is considered as a "Hard Zone" and where every employee is required to serve at least three years. The applicant had joined the said post at Uttar Dinajpur Division dated 30.01.2019. However, after considering his representation dated 16.05.2019, the applicant was prematurely transferred from Raiganj to Lower Damodar Irrigation Division, vide order dated 16.07.2019. The applicant had therefore not completed prescribed service of three (03) years in the "Hard Zone". His premature Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 o.a. 350.00063.2022 transfer from Raiganj to Singur was ordered the ground of ill health of his wife.
b) When the next Rotational transfers were due in 2022, the applicant had exercised in option for transfer to certain stations but had not opted for any "Hard Zone" Station. The applicant was therefore transferred vide order dated 23.12.2019, from Singur to Islampur.
c) With regard to the DOPT OM dated 30.09.2009 cited by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the applicant and his wife are posted in the said state i.e. West Bengal and hence there is no violation of the said O.M.
d) The applicant was transferred on the recommendation of the Departmental Transfer Committee which considered all the relevant Departmental guidelines for his transfer.
e) The CAG Office Memo dated 06.08.2021 which has been relied upon by the applicant, is related only to the posting on account of deputation only and is therefore not applicable for regular transfer/posting.
7. The Honourable Apex Court, in a number of judicial pronouncements, has held that the transfer and posting is an administrative matter and that the courts should not ordinarily interfere with such orders unless they are mala fide or punitive in nature. Extracts Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 o.a. 350.00063.2022 from some of the judgments of the Honourable Apex court on the subject, are reproduced below:-
"In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider a short point whether an order of transfer is appealable under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and the Supreme Court held that transfer of a government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a government servant liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of government service and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post.
In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar and others. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court and held as under:
4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are mode 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 today 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 law laid down in Shilpi Bose (supra) was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, and observed as under:
"6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority".Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
8 o.a. 350.00063.2022 The Hon'ble 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. 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 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.
Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, and held as under:
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. 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 contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402; SCC p. 406, Para 7).
9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides..."
In Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India & another, JT 1992 (6) SC 732, it was held "in a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department."
In N.K. Singh Vs.Union of India, JT 1994 (5) SC 298, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"Unless the decision in vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm of principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers...."
In Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa & others 1995 suppl. (4) SCC 169, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
Digitally signed by DhanuRam HansdaDN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
9 o.a. 350.00063.2022 "It is settled low that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer."
In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan 2001 (8) SCC 574, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts 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.
In Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs.State of U.P. & another 2003 (4) SCC 104 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:-
"Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the Courts. This Court consistently has been taken a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner."
In Union of India VS. Janardhan Debanath, JT 2004 (2) SC 371, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, "No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has 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 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 shown to 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 such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management..."
In Prasar Bharti Vs. Amarjeet Singh 2007 (9) SCC 539, the Court held that an order of transfer is an administrative ender. There cannot be any doubt that the transfer being an incident of service should not be interfered except some cases where, inter alia, mala fide on the part of the authorities is proved.
In Union of India & another Vs. Murlidhar Menon & others 2009 (11) SCALE 416 the Hon'ble Court observed that even if the conditions of service are not governed by the statutory rules, yet the transfer being an incident of service, an employee can be transferred which may be governed by the administrative instruction since an employee has no right to be posted at a particular place.
Digitally signed by DhanuRam HansdaDN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
10 o.a. 350.00063.2022 5.2 On perusal of material on record, we are satisfied that the transfer of the applicant vide order dated 15.06 2023 has been made after following the established guidelines. In the light of the catena of judicial pronouncements on the subject quoted above, we do not and it in the claim of the applicant nor do we find any legal infirmity in the impugned transfer order."
8. No material has been placed before the Tribunal to show that the impugned transfer order dated 10.12.2020 is malafide or punitive in nature.
Hence, keeping in view the ratio of various judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned above, I do not find any ground for interfering with the impugned transfer order dated 10.12.2020.
9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view the Original Application lacks merit. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(Anindo Majumdar) Administrative Member drh Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= DhanuRam 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8 dad5b6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89 Hansda b777a0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.05.27 16:51:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0