Relieving an officer from a selected post based on unproven allegations constitutes punitive action and malice in law.

The applicant, a Director Professor, was appointed as the Medical Superintendent (MS) of Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital on 02.09.2024 following a selection process

In early 2025, after the applicant sought clarifications regarding procurement irregularities from the Store Officer, Mr. Avanish Singh, the latter filed a complaint alleging malpractices against the applicant

A preliminary inquiry committee was constituted, and though the applicant submitted comments, the report was not shared with him

Subsequently, the respondents issued impugned orders dated 21.01.2026 and 23.01.2026, relieving the applicant of his duties as MS and directing him to hand over charge to Respondent No. 4

The respondents contended the transfer was a precautionary administrative step to ensure transparency during the ongoing investigation

1. Whether the impugned orders relieving the applicant from a selection/tenure post were punitive in nature and constituted "malice in law"

2. Whether an administrative transfer can be used as a substitute for disciplinary punishment without following the principles of natural justice

The court primarily relied on the principle of "malice in law" as defined in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India (2009), which holds that a transfer order is illegal if it is passed in lieu of punishment rather than for genuine administrative exigencies

It further applied the ratio from Vice Chancellor Lalit Narain, Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha (1986), establishing that the equivalence of a post is determined by its status, nature, and responsibilities, not merely the pay scale; thus, a transfer that reduces an employee's status is impermissible

Additionally, the court cited Governing Body, St. Anthony’s College v. Rev. Fr. Paul Petta (1988), which mandates compliance with natural justice if a transfer operationally amounts to punishment

The Tribunal observed that the preliminary inquiry report merely recommended "further investigations" and did not suggest the applicant’s removal from his post

The court found the impugned orders to be "non-speaking" as they failed to provide reasons for the abrupt removal from a selection post

By comparing the facts to Somesh Tiwari, the Tribunal determined that since no formal disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, the removal served as a "cloak for punishment" based on unproven allegations

The court further reasoned that because the MS position was a selection-based tenure post involving higher responsibilities and statutory rights, the applicant's removal significantly reduced his professional status, which is a misuse of administrative power

It quashed and set aside the orders dated 21.01.2026 and 23.01.2026

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant as Medical Superintendent within two weeks

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents the liberty to take necessary precautions to ensure the applicant does not access documents related to the inquiry or tamper with evidence