Government transfers made without Transfer and Placement Committee recommendation are legally unsustainable.

The applicant, a Deputy Superintendent of Salt at Humma, was transferred to Vedaranyam Salt Factory by order dated 3 December 2025.

After his representation was rejected on 17 December 2025, he challenged both decisions, alleging, among other things, that he was a caregiver for his daughter with a 91% disability and that the transfer was punitive, unsupported by a Transfer and Placement Committee recommendation, and contrary to applicable DoPT instructions.

The respondents attributed the transfer to alleged negligence and dereliction of duty, while maintaining that it was made in the public or administrative interest.

1. Whether the transfer was invalid because it was made without a recommendation from the Transfer and Placement Committee, contrary to the DoPT instructions issued following T.S.R. Subramanian.

2. Whether the transfer, allegedly prompted by dereliction of duty and inefficiency without due process, was in substance a punitive transfer liable to be set aside.

3. Whether the applicant’s status as caregiver to a daughter with a benchmark disability warranted protection from the transfer under the applicable DoPT instructions and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The DoPT Office Memorandum dated 9 January 2014, issued following the Supreme Court’s decision in T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India, requires a body akin to a Civil Services Board to consider transfers and postings of Group A, B and C officers; the committee is recommendatory, with the final decision resting with the competent authority.

The Tribunal treated compliance with that instruction as obligatory for the respondents.

Under Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, a transfer based on an irrelevant ground or imposed in lieu of punishment attracts malice in law and is liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal also referred to the DoPT instructions concerning employees who care for dependants with benchmark disabilities and to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, while noting its earlier decision in Hara Prasad Pattnaik v. Union of India.

The Tribunal found that the transfer had admittedly not been made on the recommendation of a Transfer and Placement Committee, and rejected the respondents’ contention that their organisation’s separate administrative hierarchy exempted it from the DoPT instruction.

It further considered the respondents’ stated grounds—dereliction and inefficiency—and concluded that the transfer had been made without due process or observance of natural justice.

Applying Somesh Tiwari, the Tribunal held that a transfer used as a substitute for punishment was legally unsustainable.

It also took note of the applicant’s caregiver circumstances and its prior decision concerning protections for caregivers of persons with disabilities.

The Original Application was allowed; any pending miscellaneous application was disposed of, with no order as to costs.