GENERAL MANAGER N E RAILWAY Vs. NIWAS DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS aggrieved by the order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal' allowing Original Application No. 758 of 2006 of respondent No. 1, Shri Niwas Dubey have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the present writ petition in brief are that the respondent No. 1 was deputed to work as Vigilance Inspector in Vigilance organisation of the Railways and thereafter he was transferred from Varanas) to Ballia on the post of commercial Superintendent. By the order dated 3rd january, 2006 the Divisional Commercial Manager (1), Varanasi placed him under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry. The respondent no. 1 challenged the order of suspension before the Tribunal in Original Application No. 564 of 2006 on the ground that before taking disciplinary action against him the consultation of Central Vigilance commission was necessary- but no such consultation was made before placing him under suspension on 24th June, 2005. During the pendency of the Original Application No. 564 of 2006, respondent No. 1 was issued a charge-sheet dated 18th may, 2006: But subsequently the order of suspension was revoked on 21st June, 2c06 and charge-sheet was also cancelled on 26th July. 2006. The aforesaid orders obviously rendered the Original application infructuous. However, the petitioners while revoking the order of suspension simultaneously transferred respondent No. 1 from Varanasi division to Izzatnagar Division. Aggrieved by the said order of transfer, respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid Original Application which has been allowed by the Tribunal by the order impugned in the present writ petition on the ground that ex facie the order appears to have been passed for collateral purposes and also in violation of Railway Board circular providing consultation of the Central vigilance Commission before such transfer.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 1 was transferred on administrative ground and therefore, it was not proper for the Tribunal to interfere with the transfer order. He further said that an order of transfer could not have been invalidated merely on the ground that it violated a circular issued by the Railway Board. In support of his submission he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of union of India and others v. Janardan Debanath and another, 2004 (100 ). FLR 1015 (SC): 2004 (16) AIC 687: 2004 (4) SCC 245 and another decision in the case of State of M. P. and another v. S. S. Kourav and others, 1995 (70) FLR 1060 (SC): 1995 (3) SCC 270.