UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAHIB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, whereby the order dated 10.06.2011 transferring the respondent in this petition from Delhi to Lucknow as well as the order dated 22.09.2011 rejecting his representation against transfer were set aside and it was directed that the respondent would be allowed to re-join the post he was occupying before the transfer and would also be entitled to payment of regular salary, during the intervening period. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition can be summarized as under:-

(2.) THE respondent working with Indian railways, on his promotion as Group ,,B Gazetted Officer, was posted as AFA in Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. He made representation seeking transfer to Delhi. Acceding to the request made by him, the respondent was transferred to Delhi by downgrading the senior scale post of senior AFA/FE/HQ, vide order dated 22.06.2009. Vide order dated 10.03.2009, he was transferred from Delhi to Amritsar. THE respondent was again brought back to Delhi vide order dated 06.01.2011. On 10.06.2011, he was transferred to Lucknow. THE order transferring the respondent from Delhi to Lucknow was challenged before the Tribunal by way of OA No. 2273/2011. THE O.A. No. 2273/2011 was disposed of vide order dated 09.09.2011 by directing the respondent to pass a speaking order on his representation. THE General Manager(Railways) rejected the representation of the respondent vide speaking order dated 22.09.2011. THE Tribunal vide impugned order dated 09.09.2011 quashed the transfer orders as well as the order rejecting the representation of the respondent on the grounds that :- (a) the respondent had been subjected to as many as five transfers; (b) the normal minimum tenure at a place was three years; (c) the applicant had been singled out for transfer and the transfer was not justified on the ground of reasonableness or as per the instructions issued vide circular dated 29.07.2010.

(3.) THIS is also not the case of the respondent that the Chief Accounts Officer who approved his transfer was not competent to do so. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of transfer was passed by an authority, which was not competent to pass such an order.