Administrative authorities are bound to assign reasons while passing orders rejecting representations against transfer.

The applicant, a Junior Engineer (QS) at Garrison Engineer (AF) Subroto Park, Delhi, challenged a transfer order dated 10.12.2025 and a subsequent rejection of his representation dated 13.04.2026

The applicant contended that his representation regarding personal difficulties was rejected through an unreasoned order that failed to address his specific grievances

While a policy dated 20.05.2025 allowed the applicant to continue in his present post during the pendency of a representation, he sought liberty to file a further appeal to the DG Personnel as per Para 6(k) of the transfer policy

1. Whether the administrative order dated 13.04.2026, which rejected the applicant’s representation against his transfer without assigning specific reasons, was legally sustainable

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to interim protection and a fresh consideration of his grievances by the DG Personnel under the existing transfer policy

The Tribunal applied the principle that administrative authorities are mandate-bound to assign reasons while passing orders, as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. Anr v. Masood Ahmed Khan Ors (2010), which characterizes "reasons" as the "heart and soul" of an administrative order

Procedurally, the Tribunal relied on Para 6(k) of the Transfer Policy dated 20.05.2025, which provides a remedy for employees to represent their cases to the DG Personnel/Engineer-In-Chief Branch

The Tribunal observed that the rejection order dated 13.04.2026 merely stated that the case was examined and rejected by the competent authority without addressing the specific personal difficulties raised by the applicant

Applying the Kranti Associates precedent, the Tribunal found that the absence of reasons invalidated the qualitative aspect of the administrative decision

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not yet exhausted the specific remedy available under Para 6(k) of the 20.05.2025 policy

Since the applicant was still continuing in his current post at the time of the hearing, the Tribunal reasoned that justice would be served by allowing a fresh, comprehensive representation to be decided via a reasoned and speaking order within a strictly defined timeline

The competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing each individual contention within ten days of receipt

Most significantly, the Tribunal ordered that the applicant shall be allowed to continue in his current posting at Delhi until the decision is communicated, provided he has not already been relieved

No order as to costs was made