Administrative transfer for maintaining organizational discipline is a valid incident of service and not a substitute for punishment.

The applicant, an Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) with Southern Railway, was initially appointed in the Chennai Division but was transferred to the Palakkad Division (Mangalore Junction) on his own request in June 2023

Within a year of joining, the applicant was issued multiple charge memoranda for minor and major penalties involving allegations of indiscipline, participation in an illegal strike, and refusal of duty assignments

Consequently, the respondents issued a transfer order dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure A-1), repatriating him back to the Chennai Division on administrative grounds

The applicant challenged the transfer and subsequent relieving orders, contending they were issued by an incompetent authority, violated tenure norms, and served as an illegal substitute for disciplinary punishment during the pendency of major penalty proceedings

1. Whether the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) is the competent authority to order an inter-divisional transfer of a railway servant for divisionally controlled posts under the IREC and Model Schedule of Powers (SOP) 2018

2. Whether the transfer of an employee during the pendency of major penalty proceedings is a violation of statutory rules or constitutes a "substitute for punishment"

3. Whether the impugned transfer was arbitrary, premature, or vitiated by malafides

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) Vol. I, which governs the transfer of railway servants

It relied on Sl.No.10(B) of the Model Schedule of Powers (SOP) 2018, which delegates full powers of transfer to the DRM for divisionally controlled posts when both concerned DRMs agree

It further cited Master Circular No. 66, which stipulates that if an employee is transferred during disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority shifts to the new administrative head

The Tribunal also referenced the principle from T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. v. Union of India regarding the use of Placement Committees and the general legal principle that transfer is an incident of service

The Tribunal found that the transfer was legally sound as the Principal Chief Personnel Officer (PCPO) had clarified that DRMs possess full powers for transfers of divisionally controlled posts under SOP 2018, provided there is mutual agreement between the divisions, which existed here

Regarding the disciplinary aspect, the Tribunal held that transfer is not a substitute for punishment but an administrative necessity to maintain organizational discipline, especially given the applicant’s alleged refusal of duty and involvement in strikes

It noted that Master Circular No. 66 expressly contemplates transfers during pending proceedings, and the change in disciplinary authority does not prejudice the employee

The court rejected the claim of prematurity, stating that the applicant's conduct outweighed tenure considerations and that administrative grounds were sufficiently established to subserve internal discipline

The court clarified that the DRM is empowered to effect inter-divisional transfers for divisionally controlled posts under the current delegation of powers

While upholding the transfer, the Tribunal noted that because the applicant was being repatriated within a year, he remains free to represent before the authorities for restoration of seniority and promotion in his parent division

The interim order staying the transfer was vacated