Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner filed O.A.No.291 of 2026 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to quash Annexure A3 order dated 24.02.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent Additional Commissioner of Excise (Administration) to the extent of transferring the petitioner- applicant, who is working as an Excise Inspector, from the Excise Range Office, Ettumanoor, to the Excise Check Post, Kumily; a direction to the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Excise to take up and consider Annexure A11 representation dated 27.02.2026 made by the applicant and to keep in abeyance Annexure A3 order of transfer, to the extent of transferring the applicant from the Excise Range Office, Ettumanoor, to the Excise Check Post, Kumily.

13. The main contention of the petitioner-applicant to challenge Annexure A3 order of transfer, to the extent the applicant, who is working as an Excise Inspector, was transferred from the Excise Range Office, Ettumanoor, to the Excise Check Post, Kumily, is that the said order is violative of the guidelines for transfer of Government employees, as contained in Annexures A4 and A5.

14. In State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav [(1995) 3 SCC OP(KAT) NO. 90 OF 2026 10 2026:KER:23562 270], the Apex Court held that the courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of Officers on administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision, and such decision shall stand unless they are vitiated by mala fides or by extraneous considerations without any factual foundation. On the facts of the case at hand, the Apex Court held that the orders of transfer having been issued on administrative grounds, the expediency of those orders cannot be examined by the court. In the said decision the Apex Court held further that the court cannot go into the question of relative hardship. It is for the administration to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration.

20. In the instant case, the main contention of the OP(KAT) NO. 90 OF 2026 16 2026:KER:23562 petitioner-applicant to challenge Annexure A3 order of transfer, to the extent he was ordered to be transferred from the Excise Range Office, Ettumanoor, to the Excise Check Post, Kumily, is that the said order is violative of the guidelines for transfer of Government employees, as contained in Annexures A4 and A5. The grounds raised in O.A.No.291 of 2026, which are reiterated in this OP(KAT), would not make out a case of exercise of any statutory power by the 1st respondent State for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended or an act done by the 1st respondent State wrongfully and willfully, without reasonable or probable cause, to disregard any legal rights of the petitioner- applicant, in order to attract malice in law.