Transfer during disciplinary proceedings is not punitive absent mala fides or statutory violation.

The applicant, Saurabh Tiwari, was serving as a Senior Social Security Assistant at the EPFO Regional Office, Kanpur. By office order dated 17 July 2026, he was temporarily transferred from Kanpur to Gorakhpur for 120 days and was relieved on the same date.

The applicant challenged the transfer as punitive, alleging that it was connected with pending disciplinary proceedings arising from a major-penalty charge-sheet dated 4 June 2026 and a report dated 24 June 2026.

He also alleged mala fides, violation of the EPFO transfer policy, absence of a Placement Committee recommendation, and disregard of his request for retention at Kanpur on spouse grounds, as his wife was posted as an Assistant Teacher at Kanpur Dehat.

The applicant relied on an earlier transfer from Kanpur to Gorakhpur in 2023, which had been withdrawn by the respondents during the pendency of an earlier original application.

The respondents maintained that the impugned transfer was issued by the competent authority in administrative and public interest, under paragraph 9.5 of the EPFO Group-C Transfer Policy, 2025, and was temporary and non-punitive.

They further contended that the applicant held a transferable post, had no vested right to remain at Kanpur, and had failed to establish mala fides or violation of any statutory provision.

1. Whether the temporary transfer of the applicant from Kanpur to Gorakhpur for 120 days was punitive or a colourable exercise of power merely because disciplinary proceedings were pending against him?

2. Whether the impugned transfer was vitiated by mala fides, extraneous considerations, or non-impleadment of the alleged malafide officer?

3. Whether the transfer was invalid for want of a Placement Committee recommendation or for alleged violation of the EPFO Group-C Transfer Policy, 2025?

4. Whether the applicant had an enforceable right to remain posted at Kanpur on spouse grounds, personal hardship, or because his earlier transfer had been withdrawn?

Transfer is an incidence of service, and an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Judicial interference is justified only where the transfer is made by an incompetent authority, violates a statutory provision, is mala fide, or constitutes a colourable exercise of power, as held in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, N.K. Singh v. Union of India, State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, and Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.

The pendency of disciplinary proceedings does not, by itself, make a transfer punitive, provided the transfer is not intended to operate as punishment or as a substitute for disciplinary action.

A transfer does not become punitive merely because it affects an employee’s convenience or promotional prospects where pay, rank, seniority, and service status remain unaffected, as explained in The Registrar General, High Court of Madras v. R. Perachi.

Allegations of mala fides must be specific and supported by material, and the person against whom they are made should ordinarily be impleaded.

Transfer guidelines and spouse-posting instructions, unless statutory in character, are generally directory and do not confer an enforceable right to a posting at a particular station.

The Court distinguished Sombesh Tiwari v. Union of India, where the transfer was found, on its facts, to be a colourable exercise of power founded on allegations forming the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was issued by the competent authority under the EPFO Group-C Transfer Policy, 2025 and was limited to 120 days.

The order did not reduce the applicant’s pay, rank, seniority, or service status, and the applicant failed to establish that it was intended to impose punishment or substitute for disciplinary action.

The mere coexistence of disciplinary proceedings and transfer was therefore insufficient to establish punitive intent.

The allegation of mala fides was general and unsupported by convincing material, and the alleged responsible officer had not been impleaded.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant had not identified any statutory provision making a Placement Committee recommendation a mandatory precondition to transfer.

His spouse’s posting, the earlier withdrawal of a transfer order, and personal inconvenience did not create an enforceable right to remain at Kanpur, particularly in the absence of established mala fides or statutory violation.

No violation of a mandatory statutory provision, lack of competence, colourable exercise of power, or enforceable right arising from spouse grounds or the earlier withdrawn transfer was established.

The Original Application was dismissed at the admission stage, the consequential relieving order was upheld, and there was no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.