UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 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: - 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 : -

(2.) WE have carefully perused the OA. We find that no specific allegation of mala fide was made in the OA against the authority which transferred the respondent from Delhi to Lucknow. A perusal of the order dated 10.06.2011 would show that the order transferring the respondent from Delhi to Lucknow was passed with the approval of the competent authority. During the course of arguments, we were informed that CAO was the authority, competent to transfer the respondent. The OA does not indicate who the officer approving the transfer of the respondent from Delhi to Lucknow was. There is no specific allegation of mala fide against any particular officer. It is not the allegation in the OA that the person who approved his transfer from Delhi to Lucknow was for some reason inimically disposed towards the respondent and that is why he had been transferred from Delhi to Lucknow. If the respondent was imputing mala fides to any particular officer of Northern Railways, he was required not only to name such officer but also to implead him as a party, besides giving details, as to why that officer was inimically disposed towards him. That, however, was not done, while filing the OA. Even the Tribunal did not attach credence to the general allegation of mala fide made in the application. Therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer of the respondent from Delhi to Lucknow was actuated by any mala fide intention on the part of the authority which approved his transfer.

(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.