Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Chhote Narayan Dwivedi vs Defence on 13 August, 2025
1 (Reserved on 05.08.2025) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the _13th day of August, 2025 Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J) Original Application No. 542 of 2025 Chhote Narayan Dwivedi Aged about 44 years son of R.P. Dwivedi R/o 628/3 North Camp Bamrauli, Prayagraj.
........... Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar Singh/Shri Rohit Singh.
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi 110001.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief Army Head Quarters, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg New Delhi 110011.
3. Director General (Pers) Military Engineer Service, Engineer-
in-Chief Branch Integrated HQs of MOD (Army) Kashmir House New Delhi-11.
4. Chief Engineer (AF) Prayagraj Zone, Bamrauli Prayagraj.
........... Respondents By Advocate: Shri Raghuvendra Pratap Singh/Ms. Karishma Singh. SHAKUNTALA VERMA 2 Order Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Karishma Singh holding brief of Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
"A. To quash the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 in respect of applicant only and rejection order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2. And movement order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Respondent No.4.
B. To direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful working of the applicant at his present place of posting CE (AF) Prayagraj Bamrauli.
C. 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.
D. Award the cost of the O.A. to the Applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Shri Chhotenarayan Dwivedi, is a civilian officer in the Ministry of Defence, presently posted at CE(AF), Prayagraj, since November 2023. He had earlier served a hard tenure posting at Andaman & Nicobar Islands for over two years and was repatriated in accordance with the transfer policy dated 09.10.2015, which SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3 entitles a tenure-completed officer to choice posting near hometown. However, a premature transfer order dated 26.03.2025 was issued, followed by a rejection of representation dated 23.04.2025 and movement order dated 23.06.2025 -- all of which were passed without considering the tenure norms, compassionate grounds, and procedural safeguards. The applicant's aged parents suffer from serious cardiac and geriatric illnesses requiring continuous care, and his daughter is enrolled at a local school, relying on stable posting. Despite detailed representations, the rejection order was quashed by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 28.05.2025 with a direction for reconsideration through a speaking order, which was later passed in an arbitrary and misleading manner, ignoring binding policy and judicial precedent.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the transfer order dated 26.03.2025, along with the rejection and movement orders dated 23.06.2025, suffers from serious procedural infirmity and is liable to be quashed. Counsel pointed SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4 out that the applicant has served only 1 year and 5 months out of the prescribed 4-year tenure, and the impugned orders have been passed without considering the compassionate circumstances, tenure protection, and applicable policy mandates laid down under Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2015. Counsel submitted that although the Hon'ble Tribunal had earlier quashed the rejection order dated 23.04.2025 and directed the respondents to pass a speaking order in terms of the applicant's representation and the facts forming part of OA No. 368/2025, the speaking order subsequently issued fails to address the relevant policy provisions and appears arbitrary and devoid of any application of mind. It is further submitted that the applicant's posting profile is aligned with Air Force establishments, whereas the proposed posting at Ferozepur -- an Army station -- does not match his professional specialization. Further, the impugned transfer order bypasses more than 20 senior officers under the All India Seniority List and disregards the statutory obligations under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5 Judicial precedents including Radhamani vs. State of Kerala, Sunny Paul vs. NCT of Delhi, Param Singh vs. State of U.P., and Dharmendra Kumar Saxena vs. State of U.P. were cited in support of the applicant's claim. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the impugned transfer order is in contravention of the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2025, and also violates the seniority norms prescribed under paragraph 4(d) of the CMP- 2015.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the posting of the applicant as CWE at Ferozepur conforms fully to CMP-2015, the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2015, and All India Seniority List guidelines. It is emphasized that the appointment was triggered by a law and order emergency following the murder of the civilian officer at Bamrauli, necessitating military substitution beyond routine policy. It is further submitted that the Ferozepur posting was recommended by a duly constituted Board of Officers and approved by the Ministry of Defence after considering operational needs, SHAKUNTALA VERMA 6 manpower logistics, and the officer's service record. He further submitted that out of his total service span of 17 years, the applicant has already been permitted to serve approximately six years at Prayagraj. The assignment carries sensitive executive and financial responsibilities and is governed by strategic deployment norms. Counsel contends that equity-based submissions concerning hometown and parental health have already been evaluated and addressed through a speaking order dated 23.06.2025. It was also pleaded that when an officer's name is considered for such executive appointments, personal preference or individual choice cannot override operational, technical, and administrative exigencies. In light of documented compliance and administrative safeguards, interference is neither warranted nor sustainable.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, by way of supplementary affidavit dated 29.07.2025, has placed on record the sequence of events post 01.07.2025 and prays that in view of interim stay granted by the Tribunal and the applicant's continuous efforts to SHAKUNTALA VERMA 7 resume duty, appropriate directions be issued to revoke the SOS order dated 01.07.2025 and permit the applicant to rejoin at HQ CE(AF) Prayagraj. It is further urged that the applicant's status may be treated as on duty w.e.f. 01.07.2025 till actual rejoining date.
7. In reference to the applicant's supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the averments therein are largely reiterative in nature and do not disclose any new statutory violation or procedural infirmity warranting interference. It is respectfully contended that the factual events relied upon -- including the unfortunate incident at Bamrauli and subsequent administrative decisions -- have already been fully addressed through the counter affidavit and annexed Ministry records. The supplementary affidavit merely embellishes personal concerns without impacting the legality or propriety of the posting order dated 01.06.2025. The respondents further submit that the Tribunal's interim order dated 01.07.2025 does not suspend or invalidate institutional prerogative, and that administrative compliance with CMP-2015 and strategic SHAKUNTALA VERMA 8 deployment norms stands undisputed. Accordingly, the Original Application deserves dismissal in limine.
8. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant, vide representation dated 21.07.2025 and subsequent communication addressed to the Directorate General (Personnel), Army Headquarters, has repeatedly sought administrative compliance with the interim order dated 01.07.2025 passed in OA 542/2025. The applicant has specifically requested revocation of the Part-II Order striking him off strength (SOS) and facilitation of his rejoining at HQ Chief Engineer (Air Force), Prayagraj. These communications highlight that despite the stay granted on the movement order dated 23.06.2025 during open court proceedings at 10:46 hrs, the SOS order was issued at 1430 hrs on the same day and remained unrevoked. The Tribunal finds that such representations reflect the applicant's bona fide efforts to secure enforcement of judicial directions and underscore the administrative delay in implementing the interim relief granted by this Tribunal.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 9
9. The Tribunal has taken note of the written submission dated 05.08.2025 filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that due to administrative constraints, a formal reply to the applicant's supplementary affidavit dated 29.07.2025 could not be filed. However, the respondents have annexed a document titled "Draft Parawise Comments on Supplementary Affidavit" (Appx-A), which contains point-wise responses to the applicant's averments. The said comments clarify that the applicant was struck off strength (SOS) from HQ Chief Engineer (Air Force), Prayagraj, vide Part-II Order dated 01.07.2025 at 1430 hrs, and was therefore not permitted to resume duty at the said office. It is further submitted that the stay order passed in OA 542/2025 was received by the respondents only at 1715 hrs on the same date, subsequent to the issuance of the movement and casualty orders. The respondents have denied any mala fide intent and have asserted that all actions were taken in compliance with lawful directions. The Tribunal has considered these submissions and finds them relevant to the adjudication of the present matter. SHAKUNTALA VERMA 10
10. In view of the submissions advanced by both parties and the material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant's posting order dated 01.06.2025 was issued pursuant to law and order exigencies and processed in accordance with CMP-2015 guidelines, the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2015, and through a duly constituted Board of Officers. It is further noted that while the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 01.07.2025, the department subsequently struck off the applicant's joining at Bamrauli in light of the fatal assault on the earlier incumbent, thereby rendering the relief infructuous qua station continuity. As regards the salary entitlement flowing from the interim order, it stands protected for the relevant duration; however, the impugned transfer itself does not suffer from legal infirmity, arbitrariness or procedural breach. The supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant fails to disclose any fresh ground warranting interference. In absence of any established violation of statutory provisions or policy framework, and considering the operational exigency underlying the posting decision, this Tribunal SHAKUNTALA VERMA 11 finds no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.
11. Further, the Speaking Order dated 23rd June 2025 reveals that the competent authority has reaffirmed the validity of the impugned posting as legally correct and compliant with CMP- 2015, and has categorically rejected the applicant's representation. This Tribunal finds no procedural infirmity or arbitrariness. It is also noted that the interim protection granted vide order dated 01 July 2025 was duly acknowledged; however, the issuance of SOS prior to service of certified copy, in absence of any deliberate defiance, does not constitute contempt. The rejection order reflects due application of mind, operational exigency, and policy alignment, supported by Ministry of Defence Office Memorandum No. F.No. B(12)/2015/D(Works II) dated 08 October 2015. The applicant's supplementary affidavit fails to disclose any new ground warranting interference. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds no ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order dated 26.03.2025, as well as the speaking order dated 23.06.2025. SHAKUNTALA VERMA 12
12. In light of the interim relief granted vide order dated 01.07.2025, whereby the Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned orders dated 26.03.2025 and 23.06.2025, as well as the movement order of the same date, it is evident that the applicant's plea was accorded due consideration at the interlocutory stage. The said order also recorded the applicant's personal undertaking and directed the respondents to file a short counter affidavit on specific policy issues. The said order is quoted below:-
"Shri Anil Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, counsel for the respondents are present.
Registry is directed to print the name of Shri Rohit Singh as counsel for the applicant along with Shri Anil Kumar Singh in future cause lists.
Heard on admission as well as interim relief.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been transferred by the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 to Firozpur as C.W.E. Subsequently, another order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the respondents rejecting the representation of applicant. Earlier, the applicant has filed O.A. No. 368/2025 challenging the order dated 26.03.2025 which was finally decided on 28.05.2025 and the matter was remitted back to the respondents with direction to re- consider the case of applicant treating the O.A. as part of the representation.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 13 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on account of ill health of his parent as well as non-completion of his tenure posting of two years, he is approaching this Tribunal for getting the stay till the month of November, 2025. The applicant- Chotte Narayan Dwivedi is present in the Court and he undertakes that after November, 2025 he is ready to go to the transferred place either to Firozpur or to any other place. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has been transferred as C.W.E. at Firozpur. However, the post of C.W.E. was vacant at Prayagraj itself. Now, the same post has been filled by the officer of Military cadre though the post is to be filled by the Officer of civilian cadre. In this regard, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2015 by which the rotation between Civilian cadre and Military cadre has to be ensured in order to bring transparency in the M.E.S. Further, the respondents have not followed the same at Firozpur as they have posted the officer from Civilian cadre on last three occasions and instead posting of applicant someone from Military cadre ought to be posted at Firozpur in the light of office memorandum dated 09.10.2015.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the transfer is an exigency of service. The applicant has been transferred according to Cadre Management Policy, 2015 and there is no violation of any statutory rules. Further, he submits that the grievance raised by applicant in earlier round of litigation has been addressed by the respondents. Accordingly, the O.A. should be dismissed as devoid of merits.
Considering the submission of counsel for the parties, the respondents' counsel is directed to seek instruction from the respondents on the issues raised above and file the same by way of short counter affidavit within three weeks.
List this case on 29.07.2025 under the appropriate heading.
Till the next date, the impugned orders dated 26.03.2025, 23.06.2025 as well as movement order dated 23.06.2025 shall remain stayed."
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 14
13. Considering the submission/reply filed in compliance with the direction issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 01.07.2025, and upon examining the legal issue as recently settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment and order dated 13.03.2024 passed in Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2024, the relevant portion thereof is extracted hereinbelow: -
"8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and first we wish to appreciate the law and principles laid-down in the matter of transfer persuading judicial review.
9. In the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, it is clearly observed by this Court that the scope of judicial review is only available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by malafide, non- observation of executive instructions does not confer a legally enforceable right to an employee holding a transferable post. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-
"7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject............"
10. Further, following the footsteps of S.L. Abbas (supra) this Court in the case of Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 held that the interference by the Court in an order of transfer on the instance of an employee holding a transferrable post without any violation of statutory provision is not permissible.
11. This Court further curtailed the scope of judicial review in the case of N.K. Singh v Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98 holding that the person challenging the transfer ought to prove on facts SHAKUNTALA VERMA 15 that such transfer is prejudicial to public interest. It was further reiterated that interference is only justified in a case of malafide or infraction of any professed norm or principle. Moreover, in the cases where the career prospects of a person challenging transfer remain unaffected and no detriment is caused, interference to the transfer must be eschewed. It is further held that the evidence requires to prove such transfer is prejudicial and in absence thereof interference is not warranted. The law reiterated by this Court is reproduced, in following words:-
"9. Transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable and the successor is not suitable for the post. Suitability is a matter for objective assessment by the hierarchical superiors in administration. To introduce and rely on the element of prejudice to public interest as a vitiating factor of the transfer of a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was avoidable. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset.
XXX XXX XXX "23. ..........Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no Judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated."
"24. Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill-advised."
12. The issue involved in the present case is somewhat similar in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2007) 8 SCC 150 wherein this Court in paragraph 8 has observed as thus:-
"8. .............In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the SHAKUNTALA VERMA 16 transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee....................."
13. It is not tangential to mention that this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, (1990) 2 SCC 661: AIR 1993 SC 2486 observed as thus:-
"3...............It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting................"
14. It is also imperative to refer the judgment of this Court in the case of Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited, (2013) 1 SCC 524 where it reiterated one of the pertinent principles of administrative law is that when allegations of malafide are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer. The relevant excerpt is reproduced as thus:
"27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned............."
15. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
14. Without prejudice to the dismissal of the Original Application, it is clarified that the applicant's salary and service SHAKUNTALA VERMA 17 benefits for the duration covered by the interim order dated 01.07.2025 shall remain protected. The said interim relief, operative during the pendency of proceedings, entitled the applicant to draw salary in accordance with institutional norms. This protection is strictly confined to monetary entitlements and shall not be construed as either validation of the impugned transfer order or a reflection on the propriety of the posting.
15. Accordingly, the Original Application stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (J) /Shakuntala/ SHAKUNTALA VERMA