ASI Officer’s 1,800-Km Transfer To Aurangabad Stands, But CAT Quashes Order Combining Immediate Relieving With Two-Month Handover

The applicant, a Photo Officer posted with the Archaeological Survey of India’s Srinagar Circle at Jammu since July 2023, was transferred to the Aurangabad Circle by order dated 28 November 2025.

A subsequent order dated 1 December 2025 directed his relieving while allowing up to two months to hand over charge and records.

The applicant challenged both orders, alleging that the transfer was punitive and mala fide, and that the relieving arrangements were unworkable and created a risk of salary and transfer-allowance disruption.

The Tribunal stayed implementation of the relieving order on 10 December 2025.

The respondents maintained that the transfer was made for administrative exigencies and public interest, and denied that it was punishment for a complaint.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 28 November 2025 was liable to be set aside as mala fide, discriminatory, or imposed in lieu of punishment.

2. Whether the relieving order dated 1 December 2025 was administratively inconsistent and should be set aside or revised.

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service; an employee has no vested right to remain at a particular posting. Judicial review of a transfer is limited and is generally warranted where the order violates statutory rules, is made without jurisdiction, or is vitiated by established mala fides.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1993 (4) SCC 357; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; and other transfer authorities for these principles.

It also considered Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592, concerning transfers founded on irrelevant grounds or imposed in lieu of punishment.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal found no proof that the transfer breached a statutory provision or was mala fide.

Although the applicant alleged that it followed a complaint and was punitive, the respondents stated that no inquiry or disciplinary proceedings had been initiated; the Tribunal treated the allegation as unproven.

The applicant retained the same post, pay, and rank, and the respondents asserted administrative exigencies as the basis for the transfer. The Tribunal therefore declined to interfere with the transfer itself.

However, it found the relieving order internally inconsistent: it relieved the applicant while requiring him to retain responsibility for records at Jammu for up to two months, despite the distance from Aurangabad.

It also noted the respondents’ admission that funds were unavailable for a TA advance, making the suggested arrangement impractical.

The respondents were directed to revise the relieving arrangements so that handover of the old charge and assumption of the new charge could occur in an administratively workable manner.

The interim order was vacated, and no order as to costs was made.