T. DHILSHATHU BEEGAM Vs. DIRECTOR, ATOMIC MINERALS DIRECTORATE FOR EXPLORATION & RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition preferred by the petitioner is directed against the order dated 11-6-2013 passed in O.A. No. 809 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, declining to interfere with Annexure-Al, the transfer order, wherein the petitioner has been transferred from Bangalore to Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that she joined as Scientific Officer in Southern Region of Atomic Minerals Directorate, Bangalore on 18-9-2003. She was promoted to the grade of Scientific Officer - 'D' on 1-8-2008. The respondents vide Annexure-A1, dated 5-9-2012 transferred her from Bangalore to Delhi along with other officers, which comprised of four lady officers also to different places. It is her case that she had made allegations against her immediate Superior Officer, in response to which a Committee was constituted to look into the said allegations wherein the Committee found that the allegations made by her were true. On account of the same, she has been victimised by transferring her from Bangalore to Delhi at the behest of other Scientists who are the henchmen of her immediate superior. It was also contended her presence at Bangalore is required to assist her father who is suffering from medical infirmity and further as she has been transferred with a mala fide intention the order be quashed.

(2.) The respondent opposed the application and among other things inter alia contended that the petitioner has been transferred by taking all factors into consideration. They denied the plea of victimisation and contended, apart from the petitioner four other lady officers have been transferred to other places. The order of transfer is made in the interest of the department and accordingly sought for dismissal of the application.

(3.) The Tribunal taking into consideration the entire material placed on record came to the conclusion as the order of transfer is made in the interest of department, it does not call for interference as contended by the petitioner and accordingly by the impugned order dismissed the application.