Transfer and relieving orders stayed pending disposal of representation involving ongoing POSH and CBI-mandated inquiries.

The applicant, a Deputy General Manager at the Ordnance Equipment Factory (OEF), Hazratpur, challenged a transfer order dated 16.03.2026 and a subsequent relieving order dated 28.03.2026.

The applicant alleged the transfer was mala fide, triggered by a sexual harassment complaint filed by the sister of an employee facing departmental proceedings.

TCL Headquarter had issued an order on 18.03.2026 directing the respondents to keep the transfer in abeyance pending an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) inquiry under the POSH Act.

The applicant is a member of an 8-member committee constituted at the direction of the CBI to investigate security breaches at the factory; the CBI had explicitly directed that this committee’s composition should not be changed without prior consultation.

Despite these directives, the respondents relieved the applicant from his post on 28.03.2026.

1. Whether the impugned transfer and relieving orders were legally sustainable in light of the TCL Headquarter's stay order and the ongoing CBI and POSH inquiries.

2. Whether the court should interfere with the administrative transfer at the admission stage by directing a decision on the applicant's pending representation.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and an employee holds no vested right to remain at a specific post.

Judicial interference in transfer orders is permissible only if the order is: (1) a punitive measure, (2) mala fide, or (3) in violation of statutory provisions.

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

The Tribunal observed that while transfer is generally an administrative exigency, the applicant raised specific pleas regarding mala fides and procedural irregularities.

Specifically, the court noted that the TCL Headquarter had already directed the transfer be kept in abeyance pending the POSH (ICC) inquiry, yet the local authorities proceeded with the relieving order.

The court took cognizance of the applicant’s role in a CBI-mandated committee, which the CBI directed should remain unchanged.

The Tribunal determined that the most appropriate remedy was to compel the competent authority to decide the applicant's pending representation dated 18.03.2026 through a reasoned and speaking order, while maintaining the status quo in the interim.

It directed the competent authority to decide the applicant’s representation dated 18.03.2026 within three weeks of receiving the certified order.

The transfer order dated 16.03.2026 and the relieving order dated 28.03.2026 shall remain stayed until the disposal of the said representation.

No order was made as to costs.