An employer cannot post a sexual-harassment complainant at the same station as concerned employees.

The applicant, a Track Maintainer appointed on 27 January 2014, was posted at Barabanki. Following her complaint concerning alleged workplace harassment, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), in its report dated 7 June 2023, did not conclusively find sexual harassment proved but recommended the transfer of the applicant from Barabanki to Lucknow in the interest of safety, security and peace. It also recommended the transfer of R.K. Tewari and Shivendra Rai from Barabanki, without specifying their destination.

Pursuant to the ICC report, the respondents issued transfer-related orders transferring the applicant to Lucknow. The applicant challenged those orders in successive proceedings before the Tribunal. In OA No. 540 of 2025, the Tribunal, by order dated 2 January 2026, found no apparent infirmity in the transfer but permitted the applicant to remain at Barabanki until 31 March 2026, on account of her children’s academic session, with effect from 1 April 2026.

The applicant thereafter challenged the order dated 30 March 2026 and related orders, contending that she, R.K. Tewari and Shivendra Rai had all been transferred to Lucknow, thereby defeating the protective purpose of the ICC recommendation.

The respondents maintained that the ICC had recommended transfer of all three persons in the interest of safety and peace.

Whether the ICC’s recommendation for transfer of the applicant from Barabanki to Lucknow had a sufficient factual basis and could validly be acted upon by the respondents?

Whether the respondents acted improperly by transferring the applicant, R.K. Tewari and Shivendra Rai to the same station, namely Lucknow, despite the sensitive background disclosed in the ICC report?

Whether the order dated 30 March 2026 enforcing the applicant’s transfer from Barabanki to Lucknow was liable to be quashed or modified?

The Tribunal applied the principle that administrative transfer is ordinarily within the employer’s domain, but its implementation must be consistent with the purpose of the underlying decision and must not be arbitrary or contrary to relevant material.

The Tribunal treated the ICC report as the operative basis for the transfer and examined whether the respondents had implemented its recommendations rationally and in a manner consistent with workplace safety and peace.

It further applied the principle that, where an ICC recommends transfer of persons involved in a sensitive workplace dispute, the employer must give meaningful effect to the protective purpose of that recommendation; transferring the complainant to the same station as the persons against whom concerns were recorded may be improper.

No separate statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order.

The Tribunal examined the ICC report and found that the recommendation to transfer the applicant was not baseless. The ICC had considered the statements of witnesses, including allegations that their signatures had been obtained on blank papers and that the applicant’s husband had exerted pressure on one witness. On that material, the ICC recommended the applicant’s transfer in the interest of safety, security and peace.

However, the Tribunal distinguished between the validity of the recommendation to remove the applicant from Barabanki and the manner in which the respondents implemented it.

While the ICC had recommended that R.K. Tewari and Shivendra Rai be transferred from Barabanki, it had not directed that they be posted to Lucknow. The respondents’ decision to post all three individuals at Lucknow was therefore inconsistent with the evident objective of separating the applicant from the persons involved in the sensitive dispute.

The Tribunal consequently found the enforcement of the applicant’s transfer to Lucknow improper, while not holding that the ICC’s recommendation for her transfer from Barabanki was wholly without basis.

The order dated 30 March 2026 was therefore quashed and set aside to the extent that it enforced the applicant’s transfer from Barabanki to Lucknow.

The Tribunal also held that its earlier order dated 2 January 2026 in OA No. 540 of 2025 required modification in light of the circumstances.

The Original Application and connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.