Transfer and relieving orders stayed pending disposal of representation alleging malafide and punitive administrative transfer.

The Applicant, serving as Assistant General Manager at the Ordnance Equipment Factory, Hazaratpur, was transferred to the TCL Liaison Office, New Delhi, via an order dated 16.03.2026

He was subsequently relieved on 28.03.2026

The Applicant challenged these orders, alleging they were issued mala fide following a sexual harassment complaint filed against him under the POSH Act by the sister of an employee (Raghunandan Sharma) against whom the Applicant was conducting disciplinary and CBI-related proceedings

The Applicant contended that TCL Headquarters had directed the transfer be kept in abeyance pending the POSH inquiry

the CBI had restricted changes to the 8-member committee (of which the Applicant was a member) investigating factory security breaches

The Applicant’s representations dated 17.03.2026 and 19.03.2026 remained undecided

1. Whether the impugned transfer and relieving orders were liable to be set aside for being punitive, mala fide, or in violation of administrative stay orders and CBI directives

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the Applicant's pending representation while maintaining the status quo on his posting

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It applied the settled legal principle that transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no vested right to stay at a specific post; such orders can only be assailed if they are punitive, mala fide, or violate statutory provisions

The court also referenced the procedural relevance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act) and the BNSS in the context of the underlying allegations

The Tribunal noted the rival contentions but declined to enter into the merits of the case at the admission stage

It focused on the procedural fact that the Applicant had submitted representations which the competent authority had yet to decide

The Court highlighted the Applicant’s specific pleas: that the transfer was effectively punitive, that the TCL Headquarters had already ordered the transfer to be kept in abeyance pending the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) inquiry, and that the CBI had specifically directed against changing the composition of the inquiry committee involving the Applicant

By connecting these facts to the principles of administrative fairness, the Court determined that the balance of convenience required the administrative authority to pass a reasoned order before the transfer was enforced

The Tribunal held that until the disposal of the said representation, the transfer order dated 16.03.2026 and the relieving order dated 28.03.2026 shall remain stayed

It was clarified that the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded.