DEEP NARAYAN YADAV vs CGDA

1
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6

Central Administrat

tive Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi

O.A. No.3171/
th
This the 25 day of A
/2026
August, 2026


le Ms. Harvinder Kaur Ob
Hon’bl
beroi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Kha
ati, Member (A)

RAYAN YADAV S/o Mr. Upe
DEEP NAR
Aged abou
Last posted
Accounts (
No. 533, Z
Sector 16B


(Through A
endra Yadav
nior Auditor
t 41 (Forty One) years, Sen
d at Principal Controller of
(PCDA), New Delhi Residen
f Defence
nt of Flat
innia Tower, SKA Green Ar
B, Greater Noida, 201306
rch,

...Applicant
Advocate: Mr. Rohan Singh
h, Mr. Akshat Saini,
Ms. S Roy)

Versus

1. Controll
ler General of Defence Ac
, Ulan Batar Road, Palam
counts
, Delhi
(CGDA),
Cantt., N

2. Principa
New Delhi.
al Controller of Defence Ac
counts
ffice of
Defence
Defence
(PCDA),
the Pri
Account
Offices
New Del

3. Principa
New Delhi. Address: Of
incipal Controller of D
ts, 6th Floor, A-Block, D
Complex, Africa Avenue
lhi - 110023.
Marg,
al Controller of Defence Ac
counts
Agaram
(PCDA),
Rd, V
Karnata

4. Union o
Bangalore, 107, Lower A
Victoria Layout, Beng
aka 560007.
galuru,
of India, Through the Sec
y of Defence, South Block
cretary,
Ministry
Delhi - 1
k, New
110011.
... Respondents

(Through A
Advocate: Ms. Aishwarya K
Kumar)

2
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
ORDER(Or
ral)


Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Obero
Hon’ble M
oi, Member (J)
The a
applicant, by way of the pre
esent Original Application,
,
has sought
t the following reliefs:
“8.1-Q
AN/I/
Applic
Quash and set aside the impug
gned transfer order bearing No.
.
e
1272/2026/STAFF OUT dated
cant from Delhi to Bangalore; A
d 12.03.2026 transferring the
AND
8.2- Q
11011
Applic
Quash and set aside the impugn
ned relieving order bearing No.
dated 23.03.2026 relieving the
.
e
1/A/Cs-I/Vividh/Estt/Vol IV d
cant from Delhi; AND
8.3- D
within
and ot
Direct the Respondents to pos
n a time-bound period, where t
st the Applicant to New Delhi
i
n
the criminal trial/investigation
ther proceedings are pending;
8.4.
ΑΝ/Χ/
dispro
relevan
Quash and set asid
/10033/2/2026/CAT/DNY a
oportionate in nature, for faili
e the Speaking Order
as being arbitrary and
ing to take into consideration
r
d
n
nt concerns raised by the Appli
icant;
8.5.
ΑΝ/Χ/
Quash and set asid
/10033/2/2026/CAT/DNY for
e the Speaking Order
being punitive in nature;
r
8.6 D
salarie
along w
Direct the Respondents to fo
orthwith release all withheld
due payments to the Applicant,
d
es and allowances, and other d
,
with compensatory interest the
ereon, in accordance with law
8.7 Re
action
Banga
AN/I/
order
23.03.
estrain the Respondents from t
n against the Applicant on
taking any coercive or adverse
e
account of non-joining at
ansfer order bearing No.
ed 12.03.2026 and relieving
-I/Vividh/Estt/Vol IV dated
t
alore based on the tra
1272/2026/STAFF OUT date
.
g
d
bearing No. 11011/A/Cs-
.2026.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIV
VE
1. Dir
the Ap
Applic
RC003
ect Respondent No. 1 and/or
pplicant to a suitable posting w
cant's right to effectively
32025A0011/2025 is not defea
Respondent No. 2 to transfer
within Delhi NCR such that the
r
e
defend himself in FIR:
ated;
:

2. D
accom
Direct Respondent 1 an
mmodate/post the Applicant in
nd/or Respondent 2 to
n any available non-sensitive
o
e

3
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
post C
Ludhia
Uttara
crimin
Court,
other
the pe
Close to Delhi NCR such as
Meerut, Dehradun, HAlwan,
Allahabad, Patna, Jaipur,
can attend proceedings in his
0011/2025 before the Special
,
,
s
ana, Chandigarh, Lucknow,
akhand so that the Applicant
nal trial in FIR: RC0032025A0
l
h
n
, Rouse Avenue at Delhi by tr
ravelling overnight; Pass such
and further reliefs as may be
eculiar facts and circumstances
deemed fit and appropriate in
s of the present case.”
2. Highl
lighting the facts of the cas
se, learned counsel for the
e
applicant s
submits that the applican
nt, a Senior Auditor in the
e
Defence A
Accounts Department, in
nitially joined service on
n
21.02.201
1 and served at Pune ti
ill 30.04.2016, thereafter
r
being post
ted at Delhi from 04.05.20
016. He was last posted in
n
the Princip
pal Controller of Defence A
Accounts, New Delhi. The
e
applicant
is facing criminal
proceedings in FIR
R
RC003202
5A0011/2025 under Sect
tion 61(2) BNS, 2023 read
d
with Sectio
on 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. He
e
was arres
ted on 08.02.2025 and
granted regular bail on
n
11.03.2025
5, with a direction to
o regularly attend the
e
proceeding
gs before the Special Judg
ge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue
e
Courts, N
New Delhi. The Trial Co
ourt took cognizance on
n
22.11.2025
5, and the proceedings ha
ave continued at frequent
t
intervals,
with hearings on several
dates up to 04.08.2026;
;
arguments
s on charge commence
ed on 18.07.2026 and
d
remained p
part-heard. The applicant
asserts that his continued
d
physical p
presence at Delhi is neces
ssary for compliance with
h
the bail c
ondition and for effective
e conduct of his defence,
,

4
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
including
consultation with couns
sel and participation at
t
crucial sta
ages of the criminal trial.
3. He fu
urther submits that while t
he applicant was on leave,
,
he was tra
ansferred from Delhi to Ba
angalore by the impugned
d
transfer
order dated 12.03.2
026, followed by a
a
relieving/r
reporting order dated 23.03
3.2026. He did not join at
t
Bangalore,
, contending that his regu
ular attendance before the
e
Delhi Trial
l Court made the transfer
r impracticable and would
d
prejudice h
his right to an effective de
efence under Article 21 of
f
the Cons
stitution. He submitted
d representations dated
d
23.03.2026
6, 15.04.2026 and 27.04
4.2026, pointing out the
e
pending c
criminal proceedings, the
bail condition, frequent
t
court dates
s and availability of more t
than 20 offices/alternative
e
non-sensit
tive postings in Delh
hi/NCR. However, the
e
responden
ts rejected the request by
y a speaking order dated
d
14.07.2026
6, leading to the present O
OA, which constitutes the
e
second rou
und of litigation after an
n earlier direction of the
e
Tribunal to
o pass a reasoned and spe
aking order. The applicant
t
contends
that the transfer is eith
er arbitrary, for want of
f
demonstra
ated administrative exigen
ncy, or punitive/mala fide
e
as it is co
nnected with the pending
g criminal case, and seeks
s
quashing a
and setting aside of the tr
ransfer and consequential
l
relieving or
rder.

5
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
4. He re
elies, inter alia, upon the th
he order dated 25.02.2026
6
of a co-or
rdinate Bench in O.A. No
o. 4540/2025, submitting
g
that reaso
onable accommodation at
Delhi/NCR or a nearby
y
station wo
ould balance his right
to a fair trial with the
e
administra
ative interest of the respo
ondents. For the sake of
f
better app
preciation order dated 2
25.02.2026 in O.A. No.

4540/2025
5 is reproduced herein belo
ow:
“36.
peruse
We have heard the learned
ed the pleadings available on re
counsel for the parties and
ecord.
d
37.
impug
20.06.
transfe
conseq
facts a
The core issue which arises fo
gned Transfer/Placement O
.2025, issued by the Central B
ferring the applicant to the N
or consideration is whether the
e
d
rder No. 162/2025 dated
Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT),
North Eastern Region and the
,
e
e
quential posting at Guwahati,
and circumstances of the prese
can be sustained in law in the
nt case.
38.
10.10.
Easter
Admin
was a
7511/
consid
approv
flung
effectiv
procee
thereb
India.
It is not in dispute that the
.2022, whereby the applicant
rn Region, was quashed by the
nistrative Tribunal in O.A. No.
affirmed by the Hon’ble High C
e earlier transfer order dated
d
h
was transferred to the North
Principal Bench of the Central
1152/2024. The said decision
Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.
l
n
.
t
d
/2025 vide order dated
deration which weighed with th
14.07.2025. A significant
he Tribunal, and which found
val by the Hon’ble High Court,
was that the transfer to a far-
dice the applicant’s ability to
-
o
region would seriously prejud
vely defend the multiple
edings pending against him a
by impacting his rights under A
criminal and departmental
t Ahmedabad and New Delhi,
Article 21 of the Constitution of
l
,
f
39.
on the
taken
of the
and 7
service
is viti
colour
absolu
The respondents have sought
e ground that it is an indepe
to justify the present transfer
endent administrative decision
r
n
by the Placement Committee i
Transfer/Placement Guideline
.2 thereof. It is settled law th
e and that courts ordinarily do
iated by mala fides, statutor
rable exercise of power. How
ute. Where a transfer, though s
in public interest and in terms
es, 2010, particularly Paras 7.1
hat transfer is an incidence of
s

f
r
n
o not interfere unless the order
ry violation, or is passed in
wever, this principle is not
tyled as administrative,
t

6
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
result
judicia
ts in substantial impairment o
al review is not excluded.
of constitutional or legal rights,
,
40.
signifi
issued
was re
includ
Invest
Laund
betwee
numer
The d
consid
illusor
In the present case, certai
cance. First, the impugned
d on the very same day on whi
in undisputed facts assume
e
s
n
order dated 20.06.2025 was
ich the applicant’s suspension
evoked. Second, the applicant
ding criminal cases investigate
is facing multiple proceedings,
ed by the Central Bureau of
der the Prevention of Money
edabad and New Delhi. Third,
5, the applicant has attended
,
f
y
igation and proceedings und
dering Act, primarily at Ahme
,
d
en July and September 2025
rous appearances before differ
distance between Guwahati an
ent fora in those jurisdictions.
nd Ahmedabad/New Delhi is
den is neither speculative nor
.
s
derable, and the logistical burd
r
ry.
41.
to kee
registe
earlier
Bench
record
admin
substa
unsus
defenc
While the respondents contend
ep the applicant away from th
d that the transfer is necessary
y
s
e
he region where the FIR was
ready been examined in the
ng in the order of the Principal
ered, such reasoning had al
r round of litigation culminatin
h dated 19.12.2024. The resp
d any substantially new m
nistrative exigency that wo
ance, the very relocation
stainable on grounds affecting
l
n
h
n
d
pondents have not placed on
material demonstrating fresh
ould justify reiterating, in
which was earlier found
g the applicant’s right to fair
r
ce.
42.
issuan
lends
was re
officer
distan
partici
closer
The timing of the revocation of
nce of the placement order, th
f suspension and simultaneous
hough not conclusive by itself,
s
,
t
n
credence to the applicant’s con
endered illusory. Reinstatemen
r, immediately upon revocation
nt station in circumstances
ntention that the reinstatement
nt must be meaningful. If an
n of suspension, is posted to a
a
that materially obstruct his
oceedings, the action warrants
s
s
ipation in ongoing judicial pro
scrutiny.
43.
Article
and th
manne
himse
respon
with th
and p
procee
placed
exercis
ground
meani
The right to livelihood and the
e 21. Administrative discretion
e right to fair trial are facets of
n under Fundamental Rule 11
f

a
g
e
he Transfer/Placement Guidel
ines cannot be exercised in a
an employee from defending
departmental proceedings. The
er that effectively disables a
lf in pending criminal and d
ndents were under a duty to
balance institutional interest
to be present, on a continuous
courts and authorities where
t
s
e
s
g
he applicant’s legitimate need t
practical basis, before the c
edings are pending. The Pla
d before us do not reflect due c
acement Committee minutes
consideration of this balancing
hat compassionate and medical
se, nor do they demonstrate th
ds, as required under Claus
ingfully evaluated.
l
e
se 6 of the Guidelines, were
44.
merit.
and s
within
The objection as to territoria
al jurisdiction is also without
ued by the CBDT at New Delhi,
t
The impugned order was issu
substantial part of the decis
n the jurisdiction of this Bench.
,
d
d
sion-making process occurred
Moreover, in the earlier round

7
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
of litig
simila
the de
gation between the same par
rties concerning substantially
her declined nor negatived, and
n’ble High Court of Delhi.
y
d
r issues, jurisdiction was neith
ecision was affirmed by the Hon
45.
opinio
162/2
insofa
Easter
quash
20.06.
and 2
consid
applic
any o
crimin
to en
procee
two m
In view of the above discussi
n that the impugned Tra
2025 dated 20.06.2025 and the
ion, we are of the considered
ansfer/Placement Order No.
e consequential posting orders,
nt to Guwahati in the North
d
.
,
h
r as they post the applican
rn Region, cannot be sustaine
hed. Accordingly, the impugne
ed. The same are liable to be
ed Order No. 162/2025 dated
e
d
5
.2025 and consequential post
25.09.2025 are set aside. The
ting orders dated 25.06.2025
e respondents are directed to
o
der and issue appropriate
posting orders placing the
alternative, at New Delhi, or at
e
ant at Ahmedabad or, in the a
other nearby station where
nal and departmental proceedin
nable him to effectively and
t
g
s
e
the majority of the pending
ngs are being conducted, so as
d continuously defend those
e completed within a period of
edings. Such exercise shall be
f
onths from the date of receipt o
of a copy of this order.
46.
subsis
release
of eigh
the ev
withhe
from t
As regards the claim for rel
stence allowance, the responden
lease of withheld salary and
nts are directed to process and
dance with law within a period
eipt of a copy of this order. In
able and has been unjustifiably
d
d
d
n
e all admissible dues in accord
ht weeks from the date of rece
vent any amount is found paya
y
e
eld, the same shall carry inter
rest at the applicable GPF rate
he date it became due till actua
al payment.
47.
allowe
With the above directions,
ed. No order as to costs.
the Original Application is
s
5. Per
contra, learned couns
sel appearing for the
e
responden
ts opposes the relief soug
ght by the applicant and
d
submits
that the transfer
has been made in
n
administra
ative/public interest. It
is contended that the
e
pendency o
of criminal proceedings ca
annot by itself confer upon
n
the applica
ant a right to remain post
ted at a particular station.

It is furth
er submitted that the ap
pplicant has not joined at
t
Bangalore
pursuant to the transfer a
and relieving orders.
6. We h
have considered the su
ubmissions advanced by
y
learned cou
unsel for the parties and h
have perused the material
l

8
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
available o
on record. It is well settled
that transfer is ordinarily
y
an inciden
nce of service and that an e
employee does not possess
s
a vested
right to remain posted
d at a particular place.

Ordinarily,
, therefore, the Tribunal w
would be slow to interfere
e
with an o
rder of transfer unless t
he same is shown to be
e
contrary to
o a statutory provision,
vitiated by mala fides or
r
demonstra
ably arbitrary. However,
the aforesaid principle
e
cannot b
be applied mechanicall
ly in a case where
e
implement
tation of the transfer has
a direct and substantial
l
bearing up
pon an employee's ability
to participate in pending
g
judicial pr
roceedings. The right to
a fair trial and effective
e
defence is
an important facet of Artic
cle 21 of the Constitution.

Administra
ative discretion, though un
ndoubtedly available to the
e
employer,
has necessarily to be exer
rcised keeping in view the
e
legitimate a
and competing interests ar
rising in a given case.
7. In th
he present matter, the ap
pplicant is facing criminal
l
proceeding
gs before the Special Cou
urt at New Delhi. He was
s
granted ba
ail on 11.03.2025 with a di
irection to regularly attend
d
the procee
dings. The criminal case h
has not remained dormant;
;
rather, the
e proceedings have been
n taking place at regular
r
intervals a
and have reached the stage
e of arguments on charge.

Thus, the
applicant's requirement t
to remain available before
e
the Trial
Court cannot be charac
cterised as a remote or
r

9
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
speculative
e apprehension. It is eq
qually material that the
e
applicant h
had specifically brought th
hese circumstances to the
e
notice of th
he respondents through hi
is representations. He had
d
also indica
ated the availability of al
lternative postings within
n
Delhi/NCR
R and expressed his willin
ngness to serve in a non-
-
sensitive
assignment. The respo
ondents were, therefore,

required to
o consider not merely wh
hether the applicant could
d
technically
y be transferred to Banga
alore, but whether, in the
e
peculiar c
circumstances obtaining i
in the present case, his
s
transfer to
o such a distant station
would disproportionately
y
impair his
s ability to comply with th
he orders of the criminal
l
Court and
effectively conduct his defe
fence.
8. At th
his stage, we deem it ap
ppropriate to refer to the
e
decision o
of the co-ordinate Bench
in O.A. No. 4540/2025
5
decided on
n 25.02.2026. In that m
matter also, the Tribunal
l
recognised
d that although transfer is
s an incidence of service,
,
administra
ative discretion cannot be
e exercised in a manner
r
which effec
ctively disables an employe
ee from defending pending
g
criminal
and departmental proc
ceedings. The Tribunal
l
emphasise
ed the need for a bala
ancing exercise between
n
administra
ative interest and the
e employee's legitimate
e
requiremen
nt of being present
before the fora where
e
proceeding
gs are pending. The princi
iple enunciated therein is,
,

10
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
in our con
nsidered view, applicable to
o the present case as well.

We are co
onscious that the facts of
f the two matters are not
t
identical a
and that the applicant can
nnot claim an absolute or
r
perpetual
right to remain at Delhi
merely because criminal
l
proceeding
gs are pending against h
him. Nevertheless, at the
e
present st
tage of the criminal proc
ceedings, the transfer to
o
Bangalore,
, without consideration o
f a reasonably proximate
e
alternative
e, would cause substantial
hardship to the applicant
t
and may
materially prejudice h
his ability to effectively
y
participate
e in the proceedings. We
e also do not consider it
t
necessary,
on the material present
tly before us, to record a
a
categorical
l finding that the impugne
ed transfer is mala fide or
r
punitive m
merely because a criminal c
case is pending against the
e
applicant.
Such a finding would requ
uire a more definite factual
l
foundation
n. Similarly, the Tribunal n
need not substitute its own
n
choice of
posting for that of the
competent administrative
e
authority.
The appropriate course, in
n our view, is therefore to
o
mould the
e relief. The respondents
ought to reconsider the
e
applicant's
s posting by undertaking
g a meaningful balancing
g
exercise, k
keeping in view the presen
nt stage and frequency of
f
the crimina
al proceedings, the conditi
ons of bail, the applicant's
s
requiremen
nt of regular attendance b
before the Trial Court, and
d
the admin
nistrative requirements of
the department. We also
o

11
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
take note
of the fact that the appl
licant has admittedly not
t
joined at B
Bangalore. The present ord
der cannot be construed as
s
granting
him immunity from se
ervice directions or as
s
permitting
indefinite non-complia
ance with departmental
l
orders. Th
he applicant shall rema
ain bound by all lawful
l
directions
of the respondents and
shall cooperate with the
e
departmen
nt in all respects. The
limited protection being
g
granted is
only with reference to th
he peculiar circumstances
s
arising from
m the pending criminal pro
oceedings.
9. In v
view of the foregoing d
discussion, the Original
l
Application
n is disposed of with the fo
ollowing directions:
(i) The tra
ansfer order bearing No.
AN/I/1272/2026/STAFF
F
OUT dated
d 12.03.2026, insofar as
it transfers the applicant
t
from De
elhi to Bangalore, a
and the consequential
l
relieving/r
reporting order dated 23.0
03.2026, are set aside to
o
the extent
that the applicant is requi
ired to join at Bangalore at
t
the presen
nt stage.
(ii) The re
spondents shall reconside
er the applicant's posting
g
afresh, ke
eeping in view the pende
ency, nature and present
t
stage of
f the criminal proce
eedings in FIR No.

RC003202
5A0011/2025, the condit
tions imposed in the bail
l

12
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
order date
d 11.03.2025, and the ad
dministrative requirements
s
of the depa
artment.
(iii) While u
undertaking the aforesaid
exercise, the respondents
s
shall consi
ider, as far as administrat
tively feasible, posting the
e
applicant a
at Delhi/NCR or at a reas
sonably proximate station,
,
preferably
against a non-sensitive/n
non-executive assignment,
,
so as to fa
acilitate his attendance be
efore the Trial Court. It is
s
clarified th
hat the applicant shall no
ot have a vested right to
o
insist upon
n a particular post or statio
on.
(iv) The afo
oresaid exercise shall be c
completed and a reasoned
d
order pass
sed within a period of fou
ur weeks from the date of
f
receipt of a
a certified copy of this orde
er.
(v) Till th
he aforesaid exercise is c
completed and the fresh
h
posting ord
der is communicated to th
e applicant, no coercive or
r
adverse ac
ction shall be taken again
nst the applicant solely on
n
account o
of his non-joining at Ba
ngalore pursuant to the
e
impugned
transfer and relieving orde
ers.
(vi) The ap
pplicant shall continue to c
comply with all conditions
s
imposed b
by the competent criminal
l Court and shall remain
n
available f
for the proceedings before
the Trial Court. He shall
l
also cooper
rate with the respondents
and comply with all lawful
l
departmen
ntal directions.

13
item 39 (C-3)
OA No.3171/2026
6
(vii) As reg
gards the claim for withhe
eld salary, allowances and
d
other due
es, the respondents shal
ll examine the same in
n
accordance
e with the applicable rul
es and law. Any amount
t
found adm
missible and payable sh
hall be released to the
e
applicant
within eight weeks the
reafter. The question of
f
interest, if
f any, shall also be consi
idered in accordance with
h
law.
10. It is m
made clear that we have n
not expressed any opinion
n
on the mer
rits of the criminal procee
edings pending against the
e
applicant.
The present order is confin
ned to the limited question
n
of balanc
cing the administrative
e requirements of the
e
responden
ts with the applicant'
's ability to effectively
y
participate
e in the pending judicial pr
roceedings.
11. The p
present OA is accordingly
disposed of in the above
e
terms, foll
lowing the principle laid
down by the co-ordinate
e
Bench in O
O.A. No. 4540/2025 decide
ed on 25.02.2026. Pending
g
MAs, if an
ny, shall also stand dispo
sed of. There shall be no
o
order as to
o costs.

(Dr. Anand S
Member (A)

/sb/
S Khati)

(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(J)