Administrative transfers must not substantially impair an employee’s ability to participate in pending criminal proceedings.

The applicant, a Senior Auditor in the Defence Accounts Department, had been posted in Delhi since May 2016 and was last posted at the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, New Delhi.

He was facing criminal proceedings in FIR No. RC0032025A0011/2025 under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.

After his arrest on 8 February 2025, he was granted regular bail on 11 March 2025, subject to regular attendance before the Trial Court.

While the applicant was on leave, the respondents transferred him from Delhi to Bangalore by order dated 12 March 2026 and relieved him by consequential order dated 23 March 2026.

The respondents rejected his request by a speaking order dated 14 July 2026.

Whether the transfer of the applicant from Delhi to Bangalore, in the circumstances of the pending criminal proceedings and bail condition requiring regular attendance before the Delhi Trial Court, would substantially prejudice his right to effectively participate in and defend those proceedings under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Whether the respondents were required to undertake a meaningful balancing exercise between administrative requirements and the applicant’s need for a reasonably proximate posting before enforcing the Bangalore transfer.

Whether the applicant was entitled to an absolute right to remain posted at Delhi, or whether the appropriate relief was reconsideration of his posting by the competent authority.

Transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service, and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place; courts and tribunals ordinarily interfere only where the transfer violates a statutory provision, is mala fide, demonstrably arbitrary or represents a colourable exercise of power.

The right to a fair trial and effective defence is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Administrative discretion must therefore balance the employer’s institutional and administrative interests against the employee’s legitimate need to remain practically available before the court where proceedings are pending.

The Tribunal applied the principle stated in O.A. No. 4540/2025, decided on 25 February 2026, that administrative discretion cannot be exercised so as to effectively disable an employee from defending pending criminal or departmental proceedings, although the employee does not thereby acquire an absolute right to a particular station.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s criminal proceedings were active, had progressed to arguments on charge, and involved a bail condition requiring regular attendance before the Special Court at New Delhi.

His need to remain available before that Court was therefore neither speculative nor remote.

The respondents were consequently required to consider not merely whether he could technically be transferred to Bangalore, but whether such a distant transfer would disproportionately impair his compliance with the bail condition and his effective participation in the criminal proceedings.

Following the reasoning in O.A. No. 4540/2025, the Tribunal held that the appropriate course was not to substitute its own choice of posting or to declare the transfer mala fide or punitive merely because criminal proceedings were pending.

Instead, the respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s posting through a genuine balancing exercise, taking into account the nature, frequency and stage of the criminal proceedings, the bail conditions and the administrative requirements of the department.

The Tribunal also clarified that its order did not grant the applicant immunity from lawful departmental directions or permit indefinite non-compliance.

The transfer order dated 12 March 2026, insofar as it required the applicant to join at Bangalore at the present stage, and the consequential relieving/reporting order dated 23 March 2026, were set aside to that limited extent.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s posting afresh and pass a reasoned order within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order, considering, as far as administratively feasible, a posting at Delhi/NCR or another reasonably proximate station, preferably in a non-sensitive or non-executive assignment.

Until completion of that exercise and communication of a fresh posting order, no coercive or adverse action was to be taken against the applicant solely on account of his non-joining at Bangalore.

The applicant was required to comply with all bail conditions, remain available before the Trial Court, cooperate with the department and obey all lawful departmental directions.

His claim regarding withheld salary, allowances and other dues was directed to be examined under the applicable rules, with admissible amounts to be released within eight weeks thereafter; the question of interest was left to be considered in accordance with law.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the criminal proceedings, and there was no order as to costs.