Yogesh Kumar Agrawal vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010384872026
+ W.P.(C) 11944/2026, CM APPLs. 55381/2026, 55382/2026 &
55383/2026

YOGESH KUMAR AGRAWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Uddhav Pratap, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatin Teotia, SPC with Mr.
Prakhar Vashisth, Adv. with Mr. Aditya
Pant, Commandant (Indian Navy)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 24.08.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 11 August
1
2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA
2105/2026.

2. The petitioner, who is a civilian in the Indian Navy, joined its
services as Examiner (A) on 29 June 2015 at the Controllerate of
Naval Armament Inspection, Mumbai. He was transferred from
Mumbai to the Naval Armament Inspection station in Arakkonam on

1
“the Tribunal”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 1 of 12

1 January 2024 as Chargeman (A&E). The petitioner applied for
transfer to Delhi on the ground that the climatic conditions in Tamil
Nadu did not suit him, as he was suffering from dry psoriasis. At his
request, he was transferred to the Defence Standardisation Cell,
Badarpur, New Delhi, on 31 July 2025.

3. By order dated 21 April 2026, passed by the Directorate
General of Naval Armament Inspection, Naval Headquarters, the
petitioner was transferred to Kerala.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by
way of OA 2105/2026.

5. By judgment dated 11 August 2026, the Tribunal has dismissed
the OA.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by
means of the present writ petition.

7. The petitioner’s contention, before the Tribunal as well as
before this Court, was substantially predicted on para 5(f) of transfer
policy dated 5 August 2005 issued by the Integrated Headquarters of
Ministry of Defence (Navy), which read thus:

“(f) Personnel granted transfers on request/compassionate
grounds are liable for transfers out of station on completion of
approximately 3 years stay at the request station, where such
moves are required due to service exigencies/administrative
reasons.”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 2 of 12

8. The petitioner’s contention was, therefore, that, before expiry of
three years of stay at Delhi, the petitioner could not be transferred out
and that any such transfer would breach para 5(f) of the transfer policy
dated 5 August 2005.

9. The respondents, in their counter affidavit filed before the
Tribunal, averred, inter alia , thus:

“4.1 That the contents of Para No. 4.1 of the present Original
Application under reply, it is submitted that the statement that
applicant joined the service as Examiner (A&E) on 29 Jun 15 at
CNAI(W), Mumbai is factually correct.

The statement that during petitioner's tenure at CNAI(W), Mumbai
till 29 Dec 2023, the individual has performed his duty towards the
nation with full dedication, honesty and determination is factually
incorrect and misleading and therefore, denied.

The service record of petitioner, while being posted at CNAI (W),
clearly brings out persistent cases of misconduct, including taking
unsanctioned leave during probation leading to extension of
probation period, breaching security protocols in restricted defense
establishments for which a letter of admonition was issued by
concerned authority, using disrespectful language against superiors
and colleagues as per records, disrupting workplace harmony by
being belligerent, argumentative and exhibiting traits of high
conflicting personality.

Additionally, formal inquiries have documented the individual
engaging in sexual harassment of a woman employee at workplace
wherein a letter of reprimand has been issued to the petitioner.

Further subsequent unit i.e NAI, Arakkonam has also reported
violations of laid down CCS rules including behavioral issues and
poor interpersonal relations with co-workers, Denial of Duties and
Repeated insubordination, Unauthorized use of voice recording
equipment, Unauthorized access of documents, Frequent verbal/
written complaints/requests for invalid reasons.

In this regard, the details of service record of the individual from
29 Jun 15 to 29 Dec 23 at CNAI (W), Mumbai and further from 01
Jan 24 to 08 Aug 25 at NAI, Arakkonam is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure R/1.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 3 of 12

Therefore, the contention of the petitioner regarding his
performance of duty towards the nation with full dedication,
honesty and determination till 29 December, 2023 while at
CNAI(W), Mumbai is denied as misleading and not tenable.


4.3 That the content of Para no. 4.3 of the present Original
Application under reply, it is submitted that the medical
documentation submitted by the petitioner in above application
mentions “certificate is issued on his request for submission of bills
and does not hold any medicolegal value”.

Even though the representation was supported by highly sub-
optimal and weak medical documentation, the respondents took a
benevolent view of his situation.

It is submitted that far from showing indifference to the applicant's
health or family issues, the respondent no. 2 DGNAI have
consistently acted with utmost administrative empathy and
goodwill.

The individual submitted an application for transfer 'On Request'
on 10 Jul 24 i.e. in 06 months after the date of Joining at NAI,
Arakkonam.

Prior to individual's transfer to Delhi, the individual was formally
interviewed based on his verbal request. During this interview, the
competent authority verbally counselled him to fundamentally
improve upon his behavioral issues and service conduct as the
Defence Offices in Delhi station remain highly sensitive in nature
due to proximity to the Gol. The same requires highest standard of
institutional discipline, absolute official efficiency and strict
adherence to CCS Rules.

Following this personal counselling, and out of pure administrative
goodwill to give fair chance, the individual's request was
accommodated and he was posted to DSC, Badarpur. In this regard
a copy of Noting-28 recorded on file is annexed herewith as
Annexure R/2.
*

4.6 That the content of Para no. 4.6 of the present Original
Application under reply, it is submitted that the statement that
petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds vide order
Al/1341 dated 21 Apr 26 is factually correct. However, contentions
raised by the petitioner are denied as legally untenable as the
grievance regarding short tenure of eight months is misplaced.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 4 of 12

The petitioner's mention of 'great surprise' is self-imposed as
petitioner was posted to Delhi post proper verbal counselling by
competent authority.

Despite the prior counselling, the petitioner engaged in persistent
insubordination and sub-optimal performance which drastically
compromised the operational output and collective harmony of
DSC, Badarpur within few months of arrival.

In this regard, Copy of DSC Badarpur Note
DSCND/ADM(CR)/5078/P&T dated 04 Nov 25, DSN-
ND/Adm(S)/5103/Posting dated 24 Feb 26, DSC-
ND/Adm(M)/5103/Posting dated 06 Apr 26; HQ, DOS letter
1103/Adm/Std dated 24 Feb 26 refers and are collectively annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure R/3 (Colly.)

The repeatedly deteriorating work environment in a highly
sensitive tri-service establishment, DSC Badarpur, corroborated by
the fact that the same has been reported by three different officers
of DSC, Badarpur, ratified by Director DOS and coupled with past
service record of the petitioner; the competent authority achieved
prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner's immediate relocation
was necessary in larger public interest.

It is submitted that the administration cannot sit vainly and permit a
vital operational unit to remain disrupted merely to fulfill a routine
tenure timeline.

The transfer order has been issued to restore institutional discipline
at DSC, Badarpur, is non-stigmatic, and carries no consequence to
pay, promotion and rank of the petitioner, therefore the challenge
based on short tenure lacks merit.

It is well settled principle of service that transfer guidelines do not
create an absolute statutory bar against short-tenure postings when
overriding public interest or pressing administrative requirement
arises.

4.7 That the content of Para no. 4.7 of the present Original
Application under reply, it is submitted that the contentions are
entirely denied as misconceived and irrelevant.

The petitioner's absolute reliance on Al/1028 dated 05 Aug 05 to
challenge the order is legally untenable as the guidelines for
transfer have been promulgated vide Naval Headquarters,
Directorate of Civilian Personnel letter CP (G)/2601/Transfer
Policy dated 11 Aug 15 (Annexure R/4)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 5 of 12

Further, the 'administrative grounds' for transfer are laid down at
Para 2 Annexure to above mentioned NHQ/ DCP letter. The
transfer on administrative grounds are affected in public interest
based on functional requirements of organization.

In present case, petitioner's persistent insubordination, documented
sub-optimal performance and continuous friction with other
employees of DSC, Badarpur (as brought out vide collective set of
documents at Annexure R/3) began to actively paralyze the
operational efficiency of the unit.

The deteriorating working environment in close proximity to Gol
coupled by past service record of the petitioner, the competent
authority was satisfied that petitioner's immediate relocation was a
pressing administrative necessity to restore institutional discipline
and workplace harmony.”


10. The Tribunal has, in the impugned order, noted the limited
scope of interference with matters of transfer and has, for this purpose,
relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of UP v.
2 3
Gobardhan Lal , Union of India v. S.L. Abbas as well as Rajendra
4
Roy v. Union of India .

11. We have heard Mr. Uddhav Pratap, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jatin Teotia, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the
respondents at some length.

12. Mr. Teotia has drawn our attention to “Policy Guidelines for
Transfer of Civilian Personnel” which was an enclosure to the transfer
policy of the Navy dated 11 August 2015. Clause 2 of the said policy
guidelines sets out the grounds for transfer and, from the said clause,
we deem it appropriate to reproduce sub clauses (a) and (d) thus:

2
(2004) 11 SCC 402
3
AIR 1993 SC 2444
4
(1993) 1 SCC 148
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 6 of 12

(a) Administrative Grounds. Transfers on administrative
grounds are effected in public interest based on the functional
requirements of organisation, which include redeploying surplus
staff in excess of sanctioned strength at a location to other location
against sanctioned strength, against newly created post, on serious
disciplinary grounds, displacement of an employee to
accommodate the request of a needy employee, posting employee
to a hard station, etc.

(d) On Request. When an employee requests to be posted to a
location of his choice, not necessarily his home station, for
personal/professional reasons, it is termed as On Request transfer.
Request for retention or for transfer are to reach the respective
Appointing Authority by 30th Sep, on completion of at least one
year residency period as on 01 Jan of the next calendar year. In
normal circumstances, no request for a transfer at any other time
will be entertained. However, in extreme cases, duly supported by
facts and recommendations of the Controlling Officer, such
requests may be considered, subject to administrative exigencies.”

13. Mr. Teotia submits that, therefore, serious disciplinary grounds
could also constitute a basis for transferring an employee on
administrative grounds. Given the behaviour of the petitioner and the
fact that he made it impossible to continue him at Delhi, a decision
was taken on administrative grounds to transfer him to Kerala.

14. Mr. Teotia further submits that the decision in Somesh Tiwari
5
v. Union of India is clearly distinguishable and that, therefore, no
case arises for interference by this Court with the order of the
Tribunal.

15. Mr. Pratap submits on the other hand that the transfer policy to
which Mr. Teotia drew our attention is not the one which would apply
to his client. He instead relies on the Transfer Policy – NAI Personnel

5
(2009) 2 SCC 592
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 7 of 12

(CIV) dated 5 August 2005, already cited supra , and reiterates his
reliance on para 5(f) thereof.

16. He also submits that the case is on all fours with the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari as well as the more recent
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in X v. Registrar General, High
6
Court of Madhya Pradesh .

17. We have considered the submissions of both sides after
perusing the record.


18. It is well settled that orders of transfer are ordinarily immune
from judicial interference, save and except where the transfer is in
violation of the extant policy or statutory rules or is otherwise vitiated
by mala fides . For this purpose, we may reproduce the following
passage from the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court
7
on the issue in Sk. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India thus:

27. The above principle was cited with approval in Union of
8
India v. S.L. Abbas , wherein the Court held that transfer is an
incident of service:

“ 7 . Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the
appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer
is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any
statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it.
While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority
must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government
on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any
representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate
authority must consider the same having regard to the
exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far

6
(2022) 14 SCC 187
7
(2022) 12 SCC 1
8
(1993) 4 SCC 357
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 8 of 12

as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same
place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the
government employee a legally enforceable right.”


19. Insofar as the decision in Somesh Tiwari is concerned, the law
is not declared differently therein. The Supreme Court was, in that
case, dealing with a case of a transfer based on an anonymous
complaint against an officer, without any verification. The Supreme
Court held that such a transfer would be vitiated by malice in law and
would clearly amount to a transfer in lieu of punishment.

20. In the present case, the respondents are not acting on the basis
of any anonymous complaint. There is wealth of correspondence, as
well as other material on record, annexed to the counter affidavit filed
before the Tribunal, as well as averments on oath to the effect that
behavior of the petitioner in Delhi was so incorrigible that it was
impossible to allow him to continue here.

21. Though Mr. Pratap, as well as the petitioner who also addressed
us in person, vociferously contest the correctness of these allegations,
we are not, in the present case, exercising any power of judicial
review over the said allegations against the petitioner. Our remit is
limited to examining whether the order of transfer of the petitioner is
vitiated in law.

22. As we have said, Somesh Tiwari is clearly distinguishable. The
decision in X , on the other hand, was a case where the transfer was in
violation of the transfer policy. In fact, the Supreme Court has, in para
59 of the said decision, clearly observed thus:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 9 of 12

“59. We have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has
established that her transfer order was in contravention of the
Transfer Policy and that the rejection of her two representations, in
addition of being contrary to the Transfer Policy, were also
arbitrary. As such, the petitioner has discharged her burden and the
onus is shifted on Respondent 1 to show that the petitioner’s
transfer order was fair and reasonable in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”

23. We have also considered Mr. Pratap’s contentions that the
transfer policy, which would apply to his client is the policy dated 5
August 2005 and not the policy on which Mr. Teotia placed reliance.

24. Mr. Pratap has also drawn our attention to Clause 5 of the
transfer policy dated 11 August 2015 on which Mr. Teotia places
reliance, which reads thus:

“5. The broad guidelines for transfer of Civilian Personnel are
placed at enclosure to this letter. Appointing Authorities/Cadre
Controllers may draw up specific policies for their respective
Cadres within the overall guidelines promulgated in this letter.”

25. Mr. Teotia points out that, in fact the petitioner’s request
transfer to Delhi was itself based on the policy dated 11 August 2015
and that, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to wish away the policy.

26. There is substance in this contention of Mr. Teotia.

27. Besides, we do not find any inherent contradiction in the policy
dated 11 August 2015 and the policy dated 5 August 2005. Clause 5(f)
of the policy dated 5 August 2005, on which Mr. Pratap himself
placed reliance, merely states that persons who are transferred on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 10 of 12

request would be liable to be transferred out of the station on
completion of three years where it was so required in service
exigencies or for administrative reasons. The clause therefore is
limiting in nature. It makes the person, who is the beneficiary of a
request transfer liable to be transferred out of the station concerned
after three years are over. It does not engraft a proscription on
transferring the person out of the station of request transfer prior to the
expiry of three years.

28. We find it impossible to accept a contention that, if a person is
transferred on request transfer, he can exhibit incorrigible behavior at
the place of transfer and can nonetheless insist on remaining at the
station for a period of three years.

29. In fact, Clause 2(a) of the transfer policy dated 11 August 2015
specifically includes, transfer “on serious disciplinary grounds” within
the general parentheses of “transfer on administrative grounds”. The
allegations contained in the counter affidavit, which are supported by
the documents filed therewith, would clearly indicate that there were
“serious disciplinary grounds” justifying the movement of the
petitioner from Delhi. The transfer, therefore, by application of Clause
2(a) of the policy guidelines annexed to the transfer policy dated 11
August 2015, would be in the nature of an “administrative” transfer.


30. As such, the case of the transfer of the petitioner out from Delhi
to Kerala is a transfer which is in accordance with the extant transfer
policy, which itself distinguishes both from Somesh Tiwari as well as
from X .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 11 of 12

31. In that view of the matter, keeping in mind the restricted scope
of interference with transfer matters, we find no occasion to interfere
with the order passed by the Tribunal.

32. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine

33. We make it clear however that nothing contained in this order
should be treated as an expression of opinion on the allegations
against the petitioner. We have only considered this matter from the
point of view of whether a case for interference with the decision of
the Tribunal, which in its turn does not interfere with the petitioner’s
order of transfer, is made out within the parameters of Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.


C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J.
AUGUST 24, 2026 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11944/2026 Page 12 of 12