Administrative Transfer Incident to Disciplinary Proceedings to Ensure Unbiased Inquiry is Legally Sustainable.

The applicant, serving as Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) Morigaon, Assam since July 2024, was placed under suspension on December 22, 2025, following a ragging incident involving senior students within the institution.

A memorandum of charges was issued on February 6, 2026.

While the inquiry was pending, the respondents revoked the suspension on March 16, 2026, but simultaneously issued an impugned order transferring the applicant to JNV Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh.

The applicant challenged the transfer on the grounds that it was punitive, premature under the 2021 Transfer Policy, and violated the Model Code of Conduct active during State Assembly Elections.

1. Whether the transfer of the applicant during the pendency of a disciplinary inquiry is punitive and legally sustainable under the NVS Transfer Policy 2021.

2. Whether the court should interfere with a transfer order issued for administrative reasons to ensure a fair inquiry involving student witnesses.

Clause 4(c)(iii) of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) Transfer Policy 2021, which permits administrative transfers with or without disciplinary proceedings if an employee's continuation at a station is not conducive to administration.

The principle from Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 592, which holds that a transfer passed in lieu of punishment—rather than for administrative exigencies—is illegal.

Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi (2015) 16 SCC 415, emphasizing the necessity of concluding disciplinary inquiries within a reasonable timeframe, typically six months.

The Tribunal noted that as the head of a residential institution, the applicant was held officially responsible for the safety of students following a major ragging incident.

The respondents argued that the transfer was necessary because the witnesses in the ongoing inquiry were students of the same school; thus, the applicant’s presence could influence the proceedings.

Although the applicant argued the transfer was punitive and a violation of the prescribed five-year tenure, the Tribunal found the transfer reasoned under Clause 4(c)(iii) of the Transfer Policy as an "Administrative Transfer with Disciplinary Proceedings".

The Tribunal reasoned that ensuring a fair inquiry justified the relocation, and therefore, judicial interference with the administrative order was not warranted at this stage.

To balance the interests of justice, the Tribunal directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary inquiry within six months in accordance with established law. It further ordered that if the applicant is eventually exonerated, the respondents must consider adjusting him back to his previous posting at JNV Morigaon. The O.A. was disposed of with no order as to costs.