Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Manoranjan Debbarma vs M/O Defence on 19 December, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00111/2025
with
M.A. Nos. 227/2025, 191/2025, 216/2025, 170/2025, 238/2025
& 192/2025
Date of order: This, the 19th day of December 2025
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sri Manoranjan Debbarma, Assistant Engineer
(QS&C), MES 244224, O/o the GE Silchar, Military
Engineer Services, Pin 900380, C/o 99 APO,
Residential address; Quarter No. P 192, Masimpur,
P.O. Arunachal, Silchar, Dist: Cachar, Assam
...Applicant
By Advocates: Shri M. Chanda
Versus
1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South
Block, New Delhi 110001.
2. Directorate General (Pers)/EIB, Engineer in Chief
Branch, Kashmir House Rajaji Marg, New Delhi
110011.
3. Chief Engineer Headquarters, Eastern Command,
Engrs Branch, PIN 908542, C/o 99 APO.
4. The Garrison Engineer, Silchar, MES Pin 781365
C/o 99, APO DistCachar, Assam.
5. Deputy Director, Pers( C& M), for Engineer-in-Chief,
O/o the Directorate General (Pers)/EIB; Engineer in
Chief Branch, Kashmir House Rajaji Marg, New Delhi
110011.
6. Rahul Singh' IDSE, Deputy Director, Pers( C& M), for
Engineer in Chief, o/o the Directorate General
PRASANNA Digitally
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
signed by
OA.40/111/2025
2
(Pers)/EIB, Engineer in Chief Branch, Kashmir House
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi 110011.
7. Rahul Singh, MES 609094, AGE (Contract), O/o the
CWE (AF) Bamrauli, Prayagraj 21108.
8. Superintendent Engineer, Dir Pers C & M, O/o the
Directorate General (Pers)/E1B, Engineer in Chief's
Branch, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi
110011.
9. P.K. Singh, IDSE, Superintendent Engineer, DirPers C &
M, O/o the Directorate General (Pers)/E1B, Engineer
in Chief's Branch, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New
Delhi 110011.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Sh.A Kundu for respondents 1 to 5 & 8
Sh. A. Ahmed for private respondent no. 7.
Date of Hearing: 11.12.2025 Date of Order: 19.12.2025
ORDER
PER SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
This Original Application (O.A.) has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the applicant with the following reliefs:-
" 8.1 Impugned posting order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure A-1) read with impugned amended posting order dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure A2) be set aside and quashed with a further direction upon the respondents to allow the applicant to continue in the present place of posting i.e. in the O/o the GE, Silchar till completion of the fixed tenure of 2 years at Silchar. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. rendered on 31.10.2013 wherein the PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 3 Government of India have directed to maintain tenure stability.
8.2 Impugned promotion cum posting order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure A3) be set aside and quashed so far Respondent no. 7 is concerned.
8.3 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned speaking order dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure A4) as well as impugned movement order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure A5).
8.4 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case".
2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the applicant has joined as Junior Engineer in the MES under Ministry of Defence in the year 2013 and posted in the office of AGE (I), Agartala, Tripura. He was transferred from the O/o GE Silchar to Borjhar, Guwahati MES on account of promotion cum posting order dated 02.07.2024 and within 13 days of joining at Borjhar, Guwahati, he was transferred back to Garrison Engineer Silchar vide order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure A-6). Learned counsel submits that within a span of 5 months, he was again transferred from GE Silchar to Missamari, Assam vide impugned transfer order dated 10.2.2025 (Annexure A-
1) as Assistant Additional Director (Contract). Thus 3 transfers were effected within a span of 7 months in complete PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 4 contravention of the transfer policy and the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment and order dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure A-9) rendered in the case of T.S.R. Subramaniam & Ors -vs- Union of India & Anr. Respondents have passed speaking order dated 23.04.2025 without disclosing a single valid reason of necessity of frequent transfer without any administrative exigency with evil intention to accommodate other officers due to extraneous consideration and also on account of nepotism, favouritism and on that score, sought quashing of the said order which was passed after the applicant has approached this Tribunal with O.A. No. 73/2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 20.03.2025.
3. The learned counsel for applicant has also brought to notice of the Court the transfer policy of the MES issued vide Memorandum dated 9.10.2015, wherein it is specifically mentioned as under:-
"a) Tenure Station Posting: Three years for service less than ten years and two years for service over ten years. The service yard stick will be seen at the time of issue of posting. However, on request of the individual or on account of non-availability of vacancy in any of the three choice station for repatriation, extension of tenure beyond this normal period could be considered." However, he further mentioned that pursuant to impugned Transfer Order dated 10.02.2025 and subsequent, PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 5 amended Posting Order dated 11.02.2025, the applicant has to make movement by 05.05.2025 which is in complete violation of the said Memorandum and the Judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court."
The learned counsel for the applicant has also alleged malafide intention on the parts of respondent authorities especially Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 7 and also sought production of original records to determine it from file notings.
4. In response to notice, the respondents' no. 1 to 5 & 8 have filed their written statement contesting the prayer of the applicant to support the impugned transfer orders of the applicant. It is stated that the applicant was promoted from JE (QS&C) to AE (QS&C) vide DG (Pers) Dte. Order dated 22.7.2024 and posted from the O/o the GE Silchar to O/o the CWE (AF), Borjhar (annexure R/1). The applicant made a representation against the said posting vide his representation dated 23.8.2024 for change of posting from o/o the CWE (AF), Borjhar to O/o the GE Silchar (in-situ promotion). The said representation of the applicant alongwith others were placed before the Board on 04.09.2024. The Board agreed and posting order of the PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 6 applicant dated 22.7.2024 was amended from O/o the CWE (AF), Borjhar to o/o the GE Silchar with respect to the applicant vide amended order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure R/2). It is further stated that certain complaints against the applicant were received by the E-in-C's Branch and it was further observed that the applicant served as JE ( QS&C) in the o/o the GE Silchar from 19 Feb 2021 to 24 Aug 2024 and was further posted after promotion in the same office i.e. the GE Silchar as AE (QS & C) which is considered as sensitive appointment. Since this was against the spirit the posting policy of the organisation, the applicant was subsequently posted out from the GE Silchar to CCE (Army) No. 2 Missamari vide order dated 10.2.2025 in the interest of organisation since the applicant has already completed more than 3 years in the same office i.e. GE Silchar. The respondents have stated that the transfer order of the applicant is as per the judgment rendered in the case of TSR Subramanian & Ors. vs UOI as the applicant had already completed more than 3 years tenure at O/o the GE Silchar. In these circumstances, the respondents have prayed for PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 7 dismissal of the O.A. as the order dated 23.04.2025 has been passed by the Respondent Authorities. Learned counsel for private respondent No. 7 has also filed M.A. No. 170/2025 to give him appropriate charge in his promotional post of AE (QS&C).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following Judgments/Orders:
i. Judgment and order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.S. R Subramanian and Others.
"31. We, therefore, direct the Union State Governments and Union Territories to issue appropriate directions to secure providing of minimum tenure of service to various civil servants, within a period of three months."
ii. Judgment and order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2009(2) SCC 592.
"19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds one malice in fact and the second malice in law.
20. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 8 passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."
iii. Hon'ble Gauhati High Court division bench judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No. 219/2023 in the case of Duken Kato vs. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2024(1) GLT 1.
"24. We are constrained to hold that the transfer order so far relating to the appellant is concerned, the same was done without any lawful reason inasmuch as no exigencies of services and public interest which led to such transfer is discernible from the record except the U.O. Note issued by the Advisor to the Minister, PWD, requesting the transfer of the respondent No.5 as DDSE. Therefore, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the impugned transfer is actuated by malafide exercise of power and issued without there being any public interest or exigencies of services.
25. Yet another aspect of the matter is that the transfer policy as discussed hereinabove, was formulated to regulate the transfers of government employee in Education department of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, which covers all administrative cadres including Principal and Director etc. Such policy included the tenure of posting as 5 years and also includes different condition/considerations of transfer including hard posting etc. In the case of Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (supra), it was held that though such policy and guidelines do not create any enforceable right, however, the employees shall have legitimate expectation for proper implementation of such policy and that though such legitimate expectation is not by itself is a distinct and enforceable right however, failure to consider and to give due weightage to it may render the decision to be arbitrary. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the given facts of the present ca the above decision squarely covers the controversy at hand inasmuch as the appellant was transfer and posted after giving due weightage to his request including his date of superannuation, however, while transferring back, as reflected in the record no considerations, under the transfer policy PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 9 was made nor any exigencies of services are discernible for such exercise of power and therefore, such exercise of power is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam Verma Vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2007) 13 SCC 154 also had expressed the view that though the transfer guidelines are advisory in nature, however, same can be judicially reviewed when deviation of such transfer policy involves arbitrariness or discrimination.
26. Surprisingly, in the case in hand, not to say the enforceability of any guidelines or policy of transfer, all the transfer orders including the transfer order under challenge were not initiated on the basis of any policy of transfer, guideline and also not by the Administrative Department on its own rather at the behest of different political entities including MLAs and Advisors to different Ministers."
iv. Judgment and order dated 17.07.1998 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yadavindra Public School Association vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 189.
"2. Considering that serious allegations of mala fides have been raised in the writ petition, it was not appropriate, in our opinion, for the High Court to have dismissed the writ petition by a detailed order in limine and without notice. When such allegations of mala fides are raised and the person against whom the allegations are made has been impleaded as a respondent it would be appropriate to give an opportunity to the person concerned to file an affidavit and then to decide the case on merits. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the CWP No. 16047/97 to the file of the High Court for decision in accordance with law. Pending disposal of the writ petition the appellant should not be dispossessed."
v. Judgment and order dated 20.02.2001 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 10 Madras Bench in the case of G. Selvacomar vs. Union of India and others in O.A No. 1437 of 2000.
"21. The learned Counsel for the applicant also brought to our notice the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Salek Chand v. State of U.P. and Others. 1999(8) SLR 793. The Allahabad High Court cancelled the order of transfer which has been influenced by the local Member of Parliament. We find that there is no application of mind and the transfer order was made only to see that the applicant is shifted from that place and substituted by a person of their choice. We find that the impugned transfer order is bad and we quash the same. In view of that the applicant is entitled to continue at Pondicherry as per the order dated 15.11.2000. The official respondent is directed to re-post the applicant forthwith to his original place of posting by relieving the third respondent also forthwith."
vi. Judgment and order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi vs. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and Othrs., reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740.
"3. In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guide-lines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrary, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the concerned officer. For better administration the concerned officers must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers order at the instance of someone who has to do nothing with the business of administration."
vii. Judgment and order dated 04.04.1994 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Madras in the case of G. Prabhakaran vs. Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Madras and others, reported in (1995) 29 Administrative Tribunal Cases 45. PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 11 "7. That the order of transfer has been made after the issuance of the strike notice by the Union of which the applicant is the Zonal Secretary and before the day scheduled for the strike is established. The respondents have therefore to satisfy the Court that the transfer was for some administrative exigency. Merely repeating the phrase, 'administrative exigencies' in the reply would not suffice when a specific charge of mala fides is made on certain facts which are borne out from records and are not disputed by the respondents. The respondents have to satisfy the Court as to the administrative exigency that necessitated that transfer. When an order of termination was challenged on mala fides, it was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Manager, Government Branch Press v. D.B. Belliappa "Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specificity or motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of service, it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action." viii. Judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in the case of Hemanta Mazumder vs. Union of India, in O.A No.300 of 2018.
"It is candid clear that the present impugned transfer order was issued on the basis of the joint petition (complaint) lodged by some Railway staff. However, without going thoroughly either into the special report dated 15.9.16 or the complaint dated 10.8.18, without giving any opportunity to the employees to make their comments against whom the complaint is lodged and without any prove of the matter in hand, I am not finding that the action taken by the respondent authorities towards transfer of the applicant, is just, fair and equitable and in my view the same is not permissible under law. Hence by taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, I have no hesitation to set aside the transfer order PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 12 dated 31.8.2018 and accordingly the same is set aside."
ix. Judgment and order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Manipur High Court in WPC No. 86 of 2018 in the case of Thokchom Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of Manipur and Ors.
"10. It is not in dispute that the State Government being an institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably and any action which is unreasonable, arbitrary, malafide etc. will attract the provisions of the Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness of State action in any form. The act of malafide which takes place within four walls of the State Government, is something which is to be discerned and inferred on the basis of circumstances only. In the present case, in order to ascertain whether the frequent transfer was malafide or not the following circumstances have been considered:
First, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been subjected to four transfers with a period of 13 months;
Second, in Vineet Narain's case; Prakash Singh's case and TSR Subramanian's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already directed the State Governments including the State of Manipur to provide minimum tenure of service to police officers above the rank of Superintendent of Police and other civil servants as well. It is not clear as to whether the State of Manipur has complied with it or not;
Third, no reasons have been assigned by the State Government for frequent transfer of the petitioner except stating that it has been done in public interest which is common for all;
Fourth, it is no doubt true that it is the discretionary power of the State Government to decide as to how, when and where an employee be transferred but it is settled law that it shall be exercised by the State Government in accordance with a principle. It appears that no such principle has been PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 13 Incorporated in the Recruitment rules except the guidelines contained in the O.M. dated 05.12.2017. But it may be noted that while issuing the transfer orders, the said guidelines are not strictly followed and the stand of the State Government is that non- enforcement of the said guidelines will not confer any right upon the employee. It is true to that extent but if the guidelines which are executive instructions, are not to be followed by the State Government itself, there is no point of issuing such instructions;
Fifth, the only explanation given in the affidavit as to why petitioner has been transferred as the i/c SP, railways is that since a young and energetic MPS officer with good service record is required for the said post, he has been chosen for transfer to it. It is again well settled that what is not there in the document, cannot be explained in the affidavit. Document speaks for itself. Moreover, since there are other eligible police officers to hold the said post, one cannot be singled out by the State Government to treat him differently without taking into account the earlier transfers.
Considering the above circumstances and the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had deprecated the short tenure of service provided to the police officer, this court is of the view that the impugned order as regards the petitioner, is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside."
x. Judgment and order dated 26.08.1986 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 7904 of 1986 in the case of B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
"5. It is no doubt true that if the power of transfer is abused, the exercise of the power is vitiated. But it is one thing to say that an order of transfer which is not made in public interest but for collateral purposes and with oblique motives is vitiated by abuse of powers, and an altogether different thing to say that such an order per se made in the exigencies of service varies any condition of service, express or PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 14 implied to the disadvantage of the concerned Government servant. The petitioner who appeared in person placed reliance, as he did in the High Court, on the decision of the Bombay High and Ors. Court in Seshrao Nagorao Umap V. State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0194/1984: (1985)IILLJ73 Bom. We do not see how the decision can be of any avail to the question at issue. The learned Judges were dealing with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which a Medical Officer challenged his order of transfer on the ground that it was not only mala fide but was issued in colourable exercise of power and therefore wholly Illegal and void. It was contended by the petitioner that he was being transferred contrary to the Government policy with a view to accommodate one Dr. Section 4P. Patil because of the political influence he wielded. In allowing the writ petition, the learned Judges observed that it was no doubt true that the Government has power to transfer its employees employed in a transferable post but this power has to be exercised bona fide to meet the exigencies of the administration. If the power is exercised mala fide, then obviously the order of transfer is liable to be struck down. They relied on the observations made by this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. MANU/SC/0380/1973:
(1974)ILLJ172SC. for the positivistic view that 'equality is antithetic to arbitrariness and held that the observations equally apply to the policy regarding the transfer of public servants. It was observed:
It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 15 sufficient reasons to justify such; transfers, cannot, but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, than is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair."
6. Learned Addl. CGSC for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 & 8 has also relied upon the following Judgments/Orders:
i. Judgment and Order dated 27.04.1993 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2348 of 1993 in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas wherein it is stated that It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions /guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterized as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed malafide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions.
ii. Judgment and order dated 25.08.1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4656 of 1993 in the case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
"21. We may observe that we do not approve of the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case. Allegations of malafides having been made by the appellant on affidavit, it is difficult to fathom how the Tribunal rejected them without even requiring a counter-affidavit to rebut them. The PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 16 Tribunal's perception that the allegations made on affidavit by the appellant even without any rebuttal do not constitute the plea of malafide, is obviously incorrect. The Tribunal also did not appreciate the true extent of scrutiny into such a matter and the grounds on which a transfer is judicially reviewable.
The conclusion we have reached in the present case is for the reasons given by us and not those which impelled the Tribunal to reject the appellant's claim. iii. Judgment and order dated 26.08.1986 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 7904 of 1986 in the case of B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. wherein it says that - "It cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conductive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer." iv. Ms. Shilpi Bose and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others dated 19th November 1990, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532.
"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. 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 PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 17 should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders."
v. Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr.
Dated 17th November 1992, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1236.
"7. After considering the respective contentions of the parties, it appears to us that the appellant has not been able to substantiate that the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide against him for an oblique purpose and/or for wrecking vengeance against him because the respondent No. 2 was anxious to get rid of him and he seized the opportunity of transferring him from Delhi to Calcutta by transferring Shri Patra back to Orissa from Calcutta. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. We are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal that the appellant has not been able to lay any firm foundation to substantiate the case of malice or mala fide against the respondents is passing the impugned order of transfer. It does not appear to us that the appellant has been moved out just to get rid of him and the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide by seizing an opportunity to transfer Shri Patra to Orissa from Calcutta. It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 18 straight cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions. In this case, we are unable to draw any inference of mala fide action in transferring the appellant from the facts pleaded before the Tribunal. It appears that Shri Patra was transferred to Calcutta and after joining the post he had made representation on account of personal bordship. Such representation was considered and a decision was taken to transfer him back to Orissa region. As a result, a necessity arose to transfer an employee to Calcutta to replace Shri Patra. It cannot be reasonably contended by the appellant that he should have been spared and someone else would have been transferred. The appellant has not made any representation about the personal hardship to the department. As such there was no occasion for the department to consider such representation. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but we make no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the appellant will be free to make representation to the concerned department about personal hardship, if any, being suffered by the appellant in view of the impugned order. It is reasonably expected that if such representation is made, the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable."
vi. Judgment and order dated 13.02.2004 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1010-1011 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20002-20003/2003) in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Janardhan Debanath and Ors.
"14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehavior is a question which can be gone into in PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 19 a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehavior or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirements, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as costs."
vii. Order of CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 272/2024 dated 12.08.2025, operative portion of which, reads as follows:
"23. In the light of the ratio of the Judgement passed in the case of Union of India vs S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 (supra), the authorities are not obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons thereof and that the executive instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. Then, the guidelines give the applicants opportunity for consideration by the authorities, which in the instant case the respondent authorities have done and the PACB has reviewed and decided on each representation individually including that of the applicant."
viii. Order of CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 93/2025 dated 24.04.2025, operative portion of which, reads as follows:
PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 20 "15. From perusal of the aforesaid citations and decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that court should not normally interfere in the transfer order if that is not otherwise violative of statutory provisions or passed with mala fide intention. Transfer is an exigency of service and it is in the domain of executive to place one person at a particular place for effective administration."
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully gone through the record and judgments cited by the respective parties and gone through the facts mentioned therein. I have also taken into account the facts of the case under consideration as these are different from those mentioned in the judgments cited by the counsel for the applicant/respondents.
8. Chronology of events within cases is as follows:
(i) O.A. No. 111/2025 was filed by the Applicant to set aside speaking order dated 23.04.2025.
(ii) M.A. No. 170/2025 has been filed by Rahul Singh, private respondent No. 7 to give him full charge of post.
(iii) M.A. No. 191/2025 has been filed by the Applicant praying for production of records.
(iv) M.A. No. 192/2025 has been filed by the Applicant to consider the transfer as malafide on extraneous consideration.
(v) M.A. No. 216/2025 has been filed by the Respondents praying for a direction from this Tribunal to grant them PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 21 liberty to distribute the duties between Sri Manoranjan Debbarma, AE (QS&C) and Rahul Singh AE (QS&C).
(vi) M.A. No. 227/2025 has been filed by the Respondents for early disposal of the O.A. No. 111/2025.
(vii) M.A. No. 238/2025 has been filed by the Applicant for production of records, Note sheets and records for perusal of this Tribunal for proper adjudication.
9. The applicant has challenged the impugned transfer order primarily on the ground that he has been transferred on three occasions within a span of seven months and that such transfers are arbitrary, punitive, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 732. It is further contended that the impugned action is vitiated by malafides and extraneous considerations, allegedly to accommodate other officers, and that the applicant's representation dated 06.03.2025 was disposed of without proper application of mind by order dated 23.04.2025. He has also alleged that respondents have placed wrong facts before the Court that posting order dated 22.07.2024 was amended on the request of the applicant vide PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 22 order dated 04.09.2024 and asked for production of record.
10. The respondents have categorically denied all allegations and have justified the impugned transfer by asserting that it has been issued strictly in accordance with the prevailing transfer policy, upon completion of tenure, and in administrative interest. It is submitted that transfer is an incident of service, and the applicant has no enforceable right to insist upon posting at a particular place. He has also placed letter dated 23.08.2024 on record regarding request made by the applicant for transfer from Borjhar to Silchar (as received by email dated 11.12.2025).
11. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer is limited. Courts and Tribunals are not appellate authorities over transfer orders and cannot substitute their own views for that of the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, held that the choice of PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 23 posting lies with the employer and not with the employee.
12. The contention of the applicant that three transfers within a short span are per se illegal is legally untenable, though the transfer back to Silchar was on his own request. The applicant is posted at Silchar as JE from 19.02.2021 to 24.08.2024 and AE thereafter and is seeking further fixed tenure of two years. The judgment in T.S.R. Subramanian (supra), heavily relied upon by the applicant, does not impose a blanket embargo on transfers nor does it create an enforceable right in favour of an individual officer. The said judgment primarily concerns institutional reforms and policy recommendations and cannot be read as curtailing the employer's statutory power to transfer employees in administrative exigencies. IN SLP (C) No. 7904 of 1986 in the case of B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., it was held that "as far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of Government is not conductive to good administration". The competent PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 24 authority has passed speaking order dated 23.04.2025 after taking into account CVC guidelines and organizational interest.
13. Allegations of Malafides: It is trite law that allegations of malafides are easy to make but difficult to prove and, therefore, must be specifically pleaded and strictly established by cogent material. Bald allegations, conjectures, or surmises cannot form the basis for judicial interference. In State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma MANU/SC0542/1992: 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222, it was held that "the action taken must, therefore, be proved to have been made mala fide for such considerations. Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case."
14. In the present case, except making sweeping allegations of nepotism and extraneous consideration, the applicant has failed to place any tangible material on record to substantiate the same. Though the PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 25 applicant has chosen to implead Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by attributing malafide, nepotism and motives no specific instances and overt act supported by evidence against any particular authority responsible for the transfer has been placed on record. The applicant has also filed MA for summoning of entire records of meetings/notings etc to this tribunal to determine the alleged malice. It would not be appropriate to examine the administrative action by way of summoning of records which is to be produced by the applicant and in absence of such material the plea of malafides must necessarily fail.
14. As regards the contention that the applicant's representation dated 06.03.2025 was not properly considered, this Tribunal finds no merit in the same. The competent authority has examined the representation and disposed it vide speaking order dated 23.04.2025 in accordance with policy. It is well settled that there is no legal requirement that a representation must be decided in a particular manner or that each contention raised must be elaborately discussed, so PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 26 long as the authority has applied its mind and taken a decision within the framework of policy and law. The applicant's attempt to seek continuance at a particular place of posting is legally impermissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a Government servant cannot claim posting at a place of his choice (S.L. Abbas, supra). The Tribunal cannot issue directions which effectively amount to interfering with administrative control over transfers.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal finds that the impugned transfer order has been issued in accordance with the applicable policy and administrative requirements, no statutory rule has been violated and the allegations of malafides are unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence;
17. The applicant is at liberty to place the relevant material relating to his allegation of evil intention to accommodate other officers due to extraneous consideration and also on account of nepotism, favouritism before the competent authority or Chief PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025 27 Vigilance Officer in accordance with law, which shall dispose of the representation within a period of six months of the date of receipt of the representation.
18. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed.
19. Consequently, all pending Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of.
20. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) MEMBER (A) PB/SK ANOT PRASANNA Digitally PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY signed by OA.40/111/2025