Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Dr R Subramaninan vs Southern Railway on 22 August, 2025
1 OA 310/00832/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00832/2025
Dated Friday, the 22nd day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
Dr. R. Subramanian
Sr. DMO/Anasthesia, RH/PER
Southern Railway Hospital
Chennai. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. S. Ravee Kumar
Vs
1. The General Manager
Southern Railway
Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Principal Chief Medical Director
Southern Railway
Chennai - 600 003.
3. The Principal Chief Medical Director
Railway Hospital
Perambur
Chennai - 600 023.
4. The Medical Director
Railway Hospital
Perambur, Chennai -600 023. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, Sr Counsel for Mr. G. Anandakumar
2 OA 310/00832/2025
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"i. To call for the records of the 1 st Respondent in Office Order No. HPB(O) 273/2025 dated 19.05.2025 and quash the same.
ii. To pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The Applicant completed his DNB in Anesthesiology from Southern Railway Headquarters Hospital in 2014. He joined the Railway Hospital at Perambur and was subsequently promoted to Senior Divisional Medical Officer. During his tenure, the Applicant and his colleagues experienced severe mental and physical harassment at the hands of their superiors, particularly Dr. Kamatchi Selvam and Dr. Jayashree. In July 2024, Dr. Kamatchi Selvam entered the operation theatre without authorization during an emergency surgery and took photographs of a patient in a vulnerable state. This act, allegedly intended to target Dr. Hajira (the operating surgeon), was seen as a gross violation of medical ethics and patient dignity. On 08.08.2024, a high-risk elderly patient passed away during surgery. Following this, the Applicant and a postgraduate student, Dr. Chaitanya, were unjustly blamed by Dr. Kamatchi Selvam. Dr. Chaitanya later received
3 OA 310/00832/2025 threatening phone calls from him and posted a distress message in the departmental WhatsApp group expressing suicidal thoughts due to harassment by Dr. Kamatchi and Dr. Jayashree. These developments were documented by another student, Dr. Balasundaram, and shared with the Applicant. Disturbed by the ongoing harassment and administrative inaction, the Applicant's wife lodged a formal complaint with the National Board of Examinations (NBE) on 14.09.2024. In response, the Applicant received a notice dated 24.09.2024 from the 3rd Respondent seeking an explanation. He submitted a written reply on 30.09.2024. Despite this, another notice dated 14.10.2024 was issued, leaving the Applicant shocked and dismayed. A departmental enquiry (Ref:
S/No.HQ/MD/Comp./Anaes/24, dated 11.11.2024) was initiated against the Applicant based on unsubstantiated complaints. The enquiry concluded without establishing any charges. On 21.04.2025, Dr. Kamatchi Selvam filed a police complaint at ICF/K7 Police Station containing baseless allegations against the Applicant, his wife, and Dr. Chaitanya. Following this, the Applicant was reassigned to the Cardiac Anesthesia Department. On 19.05.2025, the Applicant received a transfer order (Office Order No. HPB(O) 273/2025) relocating him to the TPJ Division, citing administrative reasons. This was despite his 9 years of unblemished service at Perambur and the absence of any prior complaints. The Applicant submits that Railway Hospital, Perambur a large and centrally located facility in Chennai, requires at least six anesthetists to function 4 OA 310/00832/2025 efficiently. In contrast, the Trichy hospital to which he has been transferred already has adequate staffing. The transfer appears punitive and based solely on frivolous allegations. Hence the applicant has filed this OA seeking the above relief.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V. Radhakirhsnan, Sr Counsel for Mr. G. Anandakumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Though several grounds have been raised in this OA, this Tribunal has taken into account of the fact that the applicant's wife expected date of delivery is on or about 15.09.2025, and on a sympathetic consideration, this Tribunal had indicated to the applicant as to whether he would be willing to join the place to which he has been transferred, after a specified period, he had accepted the offer and has also filed a duly signed affidavit dated 21.08.2025 to that effect. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as follows:
"1. .....The expected date of delivery is on or about 15.09.2025. In such a delicate condition, continuous specialist supervision combined with my physical and emotional presence is indispensable for the welfare of my wife and unborn child. I submit that my young daughter, Miss Srinitha S, aged 5 years, has been officially admitted as a student of Standard 1, Section H (English Medium), at KRM Public School, Chennai, for the academic year 2025- 2026. The entire non-refundable school fees amounting to ₹60,500/- (Sixty Thousand Five Hundred only) were duly remitted on 27.03.2025. The academic session commenced from June 2025 and is scheduled to conclude in March 5 OA 310/00832/2025 2026. Under the above circumstances, I plead before this Hon'ble Tribunal to keep the order of transfer under abeyance and permit to join in the transferred station after six months from the date of delivery of my second child.)
2. I submit that, I undertake and assure this Hon'ble Tribunal and the Respondent, that I shall comply with the transfer order and report to the designated place of posting after the period of six months from the date of delivery of my second child which is expected to be around the 2nd week of September. I further undertake to not file any other petition challenging the transfer order bearing No. HPB (O) 273/2025 dated 19.05.2025 before this Hon'ble Tribunal or any order of transfer that may passed and I undertake to join in that place, if any such order is passed."
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents strongly contended that the Applicant is obligated to comply with the transfer order by reporting to the designated place of posting. Only thereafter, the Applicant may submit a representation requesting reconsideration of the transfer. In support of this argument, reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in B.L. Somayajulu & Ors. vs. Telecom Commission & Ors. dated 20.11.1996, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2020) 3 SCC 404 - Union of India & Anr. vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit. On this basis, the Counsel prayed for dismissal of the Original Application (OA).
6. However, in the interest of justice, and considering the undertaking provided by the Applicant, I direct the respondents to keep the transfer order and relieving order in abeyance. The Applicant is directed to report to the new place 6 OA 310/00832/2025 of posting TPJ Division on 01.02.2026 without fail. In the event the respondents assign the applicant to any alternative place of posting, the applicant shall accept the same without objection and report for duty at the designated location on 01.02.2026.
7. With the above directions, OA is disposed of at the admission stage without going into the merits of the case. It is made clear that this order is passed on a peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and this order cannot be treated as a precedent in any other case.
(M. Swaminathan) Member (J) 22.08.2025 AS