Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vijay Sharma vs Rail Bhawan on 12 December, 2025
RESERVED ON 05.12.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 12th day of December 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 330/01132/2025
Vijay Sharma, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Rameshwar Sharma, R/o
F-3, Kalashkuteer, 127/536 W-1, Saket Nagar, Juhi Colony, Kanpur
Nagar, U.P- 208014.
..Applicants.
By Advocate : Shri Dharmendra Tiwari/Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarter Office,
Prayagraj.
3. The Senior Deputy General Manager & Chief Vigilance Officer, North
Central Railway, Headquarter Office, Prayagraj.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), North Central
Railway, Headquarter Office, Prayagraj.
5. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, North Central Railway, Kanpur.
......Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar
ORDER
By Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a suitable order or direction of a suitable nature to quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 06.11.2025 as well as relieving order dated 07.11.2025 (received through whatsapp messages) with regard to the applicant.
(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the answering respondents to not disturb the applicant from present posting at Kanpur peacefully to performs his duties and pay him month to months his regular salary to him.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2
(iii) To issue any other and further writ order or directions, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) That, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to award the cost of this original application in favour of the applicant, throughout.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as Chief Commercial Inspector/Chief Commercial Supervisor (CCS) under North Central Railway, Prayagraj Division, and is presently posted at Kanpur in the office of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager. Vide letter dated 06.09.2024, the applicant was directed to appear before the Vigilance Headquarters, Prayagraj for submitting his explanation regarding the transfer of Coolie Badge No. 326 to Atma Ram, son of Late Panna Lal, the original holder of the said badge. The applicant submitted his reply on 01.09.2025 before respondent No. 3. Thereafter, a memorandum of charges dated 03.09.2025 was issued to him. Upon receipt of the chargesheet, the applicant submitted representations dated 04.09.2025 and subsequently a detailed representation dated 07.09.2025 requesting withdrawal of the chargesheet. When no action was taken, he again submitted representations on 14.10.2025 and 15.10.2025. The applicant alleges that due to the influence and interference of Shri Virendra Prasad Trivedi, Chief Vigilance Inspector, the impugned transfer order dated 06.11.2025 was issued, transferring him from Kanpur to Manikpur. On the very next day, i.e., 07.11.2025, the applicant received the relieving order through WhatsApp. Aggrieved by the said actions, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
3. The respondents, in their counter reply, have averred that the applicant, working as Chief Commercial Inspector/Chief Commercial Supervisor (CCS) under North Central Railway, was required to appear before the Vigilance Headquarters, Prayagraj, pursuant to a vigilance inquiry concerning the transfer of Coolie Badge No. 326. During the inquiry, serious irregularities were noticed, and a memorandum of charges dated 03.09.2025 was issued to the applicant strictly in accordance with the rules. The applicant was given due opportunity to submit his explanation and his representations were duly considered at the appropriate level. The respondents further mentioned in the counter MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 reply that the transfer order dated 06.11.2025 was issued as an administrative decision in public interest and in accordance with the transfer policy of the Railways. The transfer was neither punitive nor influenced by any individual officer, as alleged by the applicant. It was passed in the normal course of administrative functioning to ensure smooth working and to maintain transparency during the vigilance proceedings. The relieving order issued on 07.11.2025 was also part of the routine administrative process. Thus, the respondents assert that the impugned transfer order is legal, justified, and does not call for interference.
4. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in his Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
5. I have heard Shri Dharmendra Tiwari as well as Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has an excellent and unblemished service record. He has received several awards for outstanding work and his APAR grading has consistently been "Outstanding". Therefore, there was no justification for initiating adverse action against him. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the only allegation relates to an incident of the year 2022 regarding transfer of Coolie Badge No. 326, which the applicant processed strictly as per rules after verifying original documents. No issue was raised for more than two years. Suddenly, in September 2024, the Vigilance Department called the applicant for explanation. The applicant appeared, cooperated fully, and submitted all relevant documents. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the Vigilance Department acted with malafide intention and relied upon tampered and forged documents given by a person who was not the actual Coolie concerned. The Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat has already confirmed MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 that the documents had been altered and stood cancelled. Despite this, action was taken on the basis of these fake documents, showing clear bias. It is further submitted that the applicant had already complained against one Shri Virendra Prasad Trivedi, Chief Vigilance Inspector, who had been threatening him. Instead of addressing his complaint, a chargesheet was issued against the applicant, clearly showing malafide intent. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the chargesheet is based on a two-year-old incident and there is no reason to believe that the applicant's presence at Kanpur would hamper the enquiry. The transfer order dated 06.11.2025 has been issued solely on the recommendation of the Vigilance Department without considering any of the applicant's representations. Hence, the transfer is punitive, arbitrary, and motivated. It is also argued that the transfer order violates the Railway Board's policy dated 02.02.2010, which provides that husband and wife should, as far as possible, be posted at the same station. The applicant's wife is posted at Kanpur, but this was completely ignored. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that a transfer at this stage will badly affect the applicant's family. His son is in Class 12 and preparing for NEET-UG 2026, and his father is suffering from liver cancer and undergoing treatment at Kanpur. These humanitarian considerations were not taken into account. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the settled guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Others v. Union of India & Others, AIR 2014 SC 263, have not been adhered to in the present case. It is argued that no duly constituted committee was formed to examine the applicant's transfer, nor there is any recommendation of the competent committee on record. Consequently, the impugned order suffers from violation of the prescribed statutory procedure. It is further contended that the applicant's transfer has been effected without considering the spouse posting ground and the educational needs of his children, thereby also amounting to violation of the applicable statutory provisions and transfer guidelines. It is lastly argued that issuing the relieving order through WhatsApp, publishing notices in the newspaper, and creating MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 pressure upon the applicant to vacate his quarter reflect undue haste and malafide intention. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is illegal, punitive, and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws:-
"(i) Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited and another Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court cases 221;
(ii) Narasingaraja Vs. The Director General of Police and others passed on 28.10.2021 in WP (MD) Nos. 10759/2021 along with connected WP (MD) by Hon'ble Madras High Court (Madurai bench);
(iii) Gaurav Gyan Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others decided on 04/13.05.2024 in WP (S) No. 358 of 2024 by Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi;
(iv) Rajendra Chaubey Vs. Union of India and others decided on 20.12.1994 in OA No. 929/1994 by CAT, Allahabad Bench;
(v) Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Union of India and others decided on 10.09.2014 in OA No. 1161/2014 by CAT, Allahabad Bench;
(v) Dr. Fakhra Alam Vs. Union of India and others decided on 21.03.2024 in OA No. 84 of 2024 by CAT, Allahabad Bench.
(vi) C.J Machado & others Vs. Union of India and others decided on 23.06.2016 in OA No. 325/2016 by CAT, Ahmedabad.
(vii) Sabhapati Pathak Vs. State of UP and others decided on 03.05.2012 in Service Single No. 2450/2009 by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
(viii) Railway Board letter No. E (D&A) 65RG6/6 dated 25.3.1967".
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present Original Application is not maintainable, as the impugned transfer order dated 06.11.2025 and relieving order dated 07.11.2025 have been issued strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, departmental policies, and vigilance guidelines. The transfer has neither been punitive nor stigmatic, but purely administrative, based on vigilance recommendations to facilitate a fair and impartial inquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the applicant MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 was functioning as Chief Commercial Inspector (CMI), Kanpur Area-II, and was entrusted with a crucial verification task relating to the transfer of the Railway Coolie Batch of Shri Atma Ram (Batch No. 326) in favour of his son. Vide order dated 31.08.2022, the applicant was nominated as the verifying authority and he submitted his inquiry report on 15.10.2022, certifying that all documents were correct. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the CMI's inquiry report is the primary and decisive document for transferring a Coolie batch licence. Relying upon the applicant's verification report, the licence batch of Shri Atma Ram was transferred to his son. However, subsequent vigilance investigation found serious irregularities in the said transfer and prima facie responsibility was attributed to the applicant. Since the incident took place at Kanpur, where the applicant was posted, Vigilance recommended issuance of SF-5/charge sheet as well as transfer of the applicant so that the inquiry could be conducted without any influence or interference. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the recommendation of the Vigilance Organisation was examined at the appropriate level, and after due consideration, a charge sheet under SF-5 was issued vide letter dated 03.09.2025, and the transfer proposal was forwarded to the Sr. DCM, Prayagraj. Upon approval by the competent authority, the impugned transfer order dated 06.11.2025 was duly issued in accordance with rules. It is submitted that Master Circular No. 64 dated 17.08.2023, governing the transfer of non-gazetted railway employees, specifically provides under Para 6.3.1 that transfers may be ordered at the instance of the Vigilance Organization to ensure a free, fair, and unhindered inquiry. The said provision has been duly followed. Therefore, the transfer is not only legal but also mandated by policy to prevent tampering of evidence, influencing witnesses, or interference with the inquiry process. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that after the relieving order dated 07.11.2025, the applicant deliberately refused to hand over charge and instead locked the office at Kanpur Central. He thereafter applied for leave, which was not sanctioned, and subsequently went on sick leave to avoid handing over MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7 official keys and records. Repeated communications dated 14.11.2025 and 21.11.2025 were issued, but the applicant failed to comply. This conduct clearly demonstrates his intention to obstruct administrative functioning and inquiry proceedings. It has also been argued that transfer is an incidence of service and unless malafides or violation of statutory rules is established, which is not the case here, the Hon'ble High Courts/Tribunal do not interfere in transfer orders. In the present case, the transfer is based on Vigilance recommendation, duly supported by rules, and approved by the competent authority. Therefore, judicial interference is unwarranted. It is also submitted that the departmental inquiry pursuant to the charge sheet dated 03.09.2025 is already being conducted at Prayagraj, and the transfer of the applicant from Kanpur to Manikpur does not cause any real hardship or prejudice to him. On the contrary, it ensures that inquiry is conducted without obstruction. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully submitted that the transfer order dated 06.11.2025 and relieving order dated 07.11.2025 are lawful, valid, and passed by the competent authority in strict conformity with the rules and departmental guidelines. The applicant's allegations are wholly misconceived and devoid of any legal merit. The Original Application is liable to be dismissed. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Shanti Kumari Vs. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and others reported in 1981 AIR Supreme Court 1577;
(ii) Union of India and others Vs. Shri Janardhan Debanath and another reported in 2004 (4) SCC 245;
(iii) Rakesh Kumar Assistant Director Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another decided on 13.10.2020 in W.P (C) No. 7616 of 2020 and CM Appl. 25242 of 2020.
8. I have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the entire record.
9. The first contention of the applicant relates to the spouse ground, as his wife is posted at Kanpur and Railway Board's policy dated MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8 02.02.2010 provides that, as far as possible, both husband and wife should be posted at the same station. I have considered this submission. The said guideline is advisory in nature and expressly subject to "administrative requirement and public interest." In matters of vigilance investigation, administrative exigency is recognized as a legitimate ground to depart from the spouse-posting guideline. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Kumari (supra) case has held that:-
"............Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on the ground of malafides. There was no good ground for interfering with the respondent's transfer".
Similarly, the Tribunal in Rajendra Chaubey (supra) has held that:-
"14. Although in the above case, the Tribunal held that the transfer made in violation of transfer policy by itself, would not be a ground for quashing the order of transfer, as observed by the Apex Court in B. Vardha Rao's case. The Tribunal, however, observed:-
"However, as any transfer has to be made in public interest and in the exigencies of the administration, if a complaint is made, that it is not ordered bonafide or is actuated by malafide, or is made arbitrarily or in colourable exercise of powers, such a complaint is open to scrutiny".
15. The counsel for the applicant has also relied on the case of Uma Shankar Versus UOI 1990 (13) ATC 532, on the point that the transfer was made when no administrative exigency justifying the transfer was shown. This decision is also relevant in the present case".
In the present case, the transfer has been issued on vigilance recommendation under Para 6.3.1 of Master Circular No. 64. Therefore, the spouse posting policy cannot restrict such vigilance-based transfer. Hence, the submission raised on behalf of the applicant is not acceptable.
10. The second issue pertains to the mid-academic-session hardship, as the applicant's son is studying in Class 12 and preparing for NEET- UG. There is no doubt that education of children is an important MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9 consideration; however, courts have consistently held that academic hardship cannot invalidate an otherwise lawful transfer order. In Narasingaraja (supra), relied upon by the applicant, Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that:-
"28. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court is of the opinion that when transfers are effected after preliminary enquiry on the complaints / allegations, it should necessarily be followed up by a detailed investigation and disciplinary proceedings initiated on the allegations resultantly found to be substantiated. However, in the present case, prima facie it is found that disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memos were issued only when the matter was taken up for hearing that too after the matter was being adjourned on several occasions, which is contrary to the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 07.01.1994 and the clarificatory letter dated 09.08.1994. Even on perusal of the impugned transfer orders, it is seen that the same were passed on the administrative grounds, however, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that based on the discreet enquiry report, the impugned transfer orders were passed. Further, according to the respondents, the impugned transfer orders were passed to avoid more complications in the prison administration. That apart, the respondents have not initiated disciplinary proceedings immediately after the incident had taken place and only in the month of September, 2021, by way of filing additional counter affidavit, it was brought to the notice of this Court that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for the incident alleged to have been taken place in the month of April, 2021 and in the counter affidavit filed in the month of August, 2021, there is no whisper about the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and only after the matter was taken up for hearing, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memos were issued to the petitioner. Hence, this Court comes to a conclusion that the impugned transfer orders are punitive in nature and there is violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents and therefore, the respondents have not followed the clarification order issued by the Government and the decision in the case of Elumalai's case (supra) would therefore squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice as observed in the aforesaid decision. Hence, for all these reasons, the impugned transfer orders are liable to be set aside.
29. Before parting, this Court is of the opinion that there are various interpretations made by the parties for the definitions "administrative ground"
and "punitive in nature". The Courts decide the issue as to whether the transfer is on administrative ground or it is punitive in nature on case-to-case basis depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, for giving more clarity to the definitions "administrative ground" and "punitive in nature", MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 10 it is the right time for the Government to issue clarificatory guidelines in transfer matters, where allegations / complaints are pending against the employees by taking note of the aforecited decisions of this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court".
In the present case, no such arbitrariness or malafide is established and the transfer has a clear vigilance basis. Therefore, the mid-session study concern cannot be a ground to set aside the transfer.
11. The third ground raised is the applicant's ailing father, who is undergoing treatment for liver cancer at Kanpur. Medical hardship is a valid humanitarian consideration. CAT in Dheeraj Kumar (supra) and Dr. Fakhra Alam (supra) considered such hardships while granting relief. However, in both these cases, the transfer orders were either routine or unsupported by any administrative urgency. In the present case, the transfer is specifically connected to an ongoing vigilance inquiry and is supported by Para 6.3.1 of Master Circular No. 64.
12. Even in Gaurav Gyan (supra), cited by the applicant, the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has held that:-
"5. It was open for the respondents to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and if any allegation was found to be true, he may have been transferred, however, the same has not been done".
In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, in Gaurav Gyan (supra) case, applicant's submission is wholly misconceived. The Hon'ble High Court has categorically held that the authorities are competent to transfer an employee when allegations against him are under inquiry or when a departmental proceeding is contemplated or initiated. In the present case, unlike the factual matrix in Gaurav Gyan (supra), a vigilance inquiry is already in progress, a chargesheet has been issued, and the applicant has submitted several representations pursuant to the said proceedings. The impugned transfer order has, therefore, been passed as an administrative necessity to ensure a fair, impartial, and uninfluenced vigilance process.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 11 Consequently, the transfer cannot be construed as arbitrary, malafide, or punitive in nature.
13. It is also relevant that the applicant and his wife were earlier posted at different stations and were accommodated at Kanpur on spouse grounds for a considerable period; the applicant's wife continues to remain posted at Kanpur. Therefore, the present transfer, having been issued purely on administrative and vigilance considerations, cannot be said to adversely affect the applicant's children to such an extent as to vitiate the order, nor can it be termed arbitrary or unjustified.
14. The next issue that arises is whether the impugned transfer is punitive or malafide. The transfer order does not contain any stigma or punitive language. It simply records an administrative posting. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janardhan Debanath (supra), a transfer during vigilance inquiry is not punitive unless the order itself reflects punishment, which is not the case here.
15. It would be pertinent to note that although the applicant has alleged malafides against the Vigilance Officer, he has not been impleaded as a respondent in the present OA. It is a well-settled principle that unless the person against whom malafide is alleged is arrayed as a party and afforded an opportunity of hearing, such allegations cannot be examined. In absence of his impleadment, no finding on malafides can be recorded. Further, the allegation of malafide against the Vigilance Inspector is devoid of merit. Malafide is a serious charge which must be supported by specific and cogent material. The applicant has not shown that the competent authority issuing the transfer order acted under personal bias or with any ulterior motive. No evidence beyond bare assertion and suspicion has been placed on record. Accordingly, the plea of malafide is also not acceptable.
16. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of Sabhapati Pathak (supra) has held that:-
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 12 "8. The impugned order, in this case, clearly show that after receiving enquiry report and founded thereon the petitioner is being transferred. Thus the power of transfer has not been exercised by the transferring authority independently by his own application of mind but the impugned order of transfer is founded on the enquiry report. Fortunately, the enquiry report is part of the record which shows that enquiry officer has made recommendation for transfer besides above. The apex court while repeatedly observing that normally interference in an order of transfer should not be made but simultaneously it has also said that if an order of transfer is made as a punishment, the same cannot sustain unless permitted under the Rules. The reference is made to the Apex Court decision in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. JT 2009 (1) SC 96".
A perusal of the cited judgment shows that, in that case, the transfer was issued after the submission of the enquiry report, and the enquiry officer had himself recommended the transfer. The factual situation in the present matter is entirely different, as the vigilance enquiry is still in progress and no enquiry report has been submitted or relied upon while issuing the transfer order. Thus, the ratio of Sabhapati Pathak (supra) does not support the applicant and is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
17. Coming to the next issue as to whether the transfer has been made following Para 6.3.1 of Master Circular No. 64 dated 17.08.2023, which clearly provides that transfers may be made on the recommendation of the Vigilance Organization to facilitate free and fair inquiry. On examination of the aforesaid provision with the facts of the present matter, it is clear that transfer is not contrary to rules or policy. The guideline regarding posting of husband and wife at the same station is advisory in nature and subject to administrative exigencies.
18. The applicant's personal hardships are undoubtedly genuine. However, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Kumari (supra), hardship alone does not invalidate an otherwise legal transfer order. Administrative necessity and maintenance of fair inquiry processes must prevail over individual inconvenience, especially when a vigilance inquiry is underway.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 13
19. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Para 227 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, which provides that a competent authority may transfer a railway servant from one post to another, except (i) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or (ii) on his written request. However, when Para 227 is examined in the light of the facts of the present case, it is evident that the impugned transfer has been ordered purely on administrative exigencies arising out of an ongoing vigilance and disciplinary proceeding. Such a transfer, being grounded in administrative necessity, cannot be invalidated by invoking Para 227 of the IREC. The applicant also cannot derive any assistance from the judgment relied upon by him - Director of School Education, Madras & Others vs. O. Karuppa Thevan & Another, 1994 SCC (L&S) 1180 as the principles laid down therein have no application to the present factual scenario.
20. The applicant has further relied upon the Railway Board letter dated 10.06.2014 issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.10.2013 in W.P. (C) No. 82/2011 concerning safeguards against discriminatory transfers. However, the said circular also does not assist the applicant. The transfer in question has been effected on account of administrative exigency and in view of the pending disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. He has merely been shifted to a nearby district, and it is also a matter of record that he had been enjoying a long posting at Kanpur on spouse ground. In these circumstances, the Railway Board's letter dated 10.06.2014 is inapplicable and cannot be invoked to challenge the impugned transfer.
21. From a perusal of Railway Board Letter No. E(D&A) 65 RG6/6 dated 25.03.1967, it is clear that the said instructions are applicable only to non-gazetted staff, whereas the applicant is a Group 'B' Gazetted officer; therefore, the reliance placed on this letter is misplaced and the same does not extend any benefit to the applicant.
22. The fact that the relieving order was communicated through WhatsApp does not, by itself, invalidate the transfer. The mode of MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 14 communication may be irregular, but the substantive order remains intact if made by competent authority. No prejudice has been demonstrated by the applicant on this account.
23. The judicial precedents relied upon by the applicant mainly pertain to cases where transfer was found to be punitive, mechanical, arbitrary, or unsupported by rules. However, the present case stands on a different footing where the transfer is explicitly supported by policy and vigilance requirements. The case laws cited by the respondents, especially Janardhan Debanath (supra), Shanti Kumari (supra), and Rakesh Kumar (supra), are more appropriately applicable to the present facts.
24. On a holistic examination of the record, I find that the transfer is administrative, rule-based, and supported by vigilance grounds. No statutory violation or malafide is established. The applicant's hardship, though sympathetic, cannot justify judicial interference in a vigilance- driven transfer particularly when wife of the applicant is still posted at Kanpur where children and parents are residing.
25. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any case for interference. The impugned transfer order dated 06.11.2025 and relieving order dated 07.11.2025 do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
26. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII) Member (J) Manish MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA