Transfer on Administrative Grounds Not Subject to Refusal of Promotion Rules.

The applicant, Akash Jain, was appointed as a Group D Assistant on May 22, 2016.

He was selected for promotion to ESM-III under the Rankers Quota and completed training on January 31, 2020.

On September 29, 2020, he received a promotion order with a posting at Sumer Station, a remote location in Vidisha district.

The applicant did not join due to personal reasons, including the lack of a Jain temple and medical facilities nearby.

He submitted representations on October 5, 2020, November 17, 2020, and November 19, 2020.

Despite these, he was relieved on November 21, 2020.

A charge-sheet for unauthorized absence was issued on April 9, 2021.

The applicant challenged this via O.A. No. 408/2021, and on July 5, 2021, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to decide his representation within six weeks and restrained disciplinary proceedings.

His detailed representation was decided by the Assistant Divisional Signal and Telecom Engineer (ADSTE) on August 23, 2021, debarring him from promotion for one year but allowing him to be retained at Ganj Basoda, citing Rule 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.

Subsequently, on March 28, 2022, the applicant was transferred from Ganj Basoda Station to Dhagadkhedi Station in the same post and pay level on administrative grounds.

The applicant is aggrieved by this transfer order.

Whether the transfer order dated March 28, 2022, from Ganj Basoda to Dhagadkhedi Station, violates Rule 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, given the prior debarment from promotion?

Whether the Court should interfere with an administrative transfer order made on administrative grounds, even if it causes personal hardship to the employee?

The primary rule of law applied is that transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incidence of service.

The court applied the principle that judicial bodies should not interfere with transfer orders unless they are shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or in violation of statutory provisions, citing Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 and National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v s. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574.

It also relied on State of M.P. vs. S.S. Kaurav (1995) 3 SCC 270, which held that courts should not go into the relative hardship of employees, as it is for the administration to consider and mitigate hardship.

The specific provisions of Rule 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, concerning refusal of promotion, were also considered.

The court analyzed that the applicant's current transfer from Ganj Basoda to Dhagadkhedi was in the same post and pay level, made on administrative grounds, and not as a promotion.

Therefore, the provisions of Rule 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, regarding refusal of promotion, were deemed not applicable to this transfer.

The court noted that the previous order of August 23, 2021, which debarred the applicant from promotion for one year and allowed his retention at Ganj Basoda, was in response to his refusal of a promotion to Sumer and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

Crucially, the current transfer was not a promotion but a routine administrative transfer.

The court emphasized that interference with transfer orders is limited to cases of mala fide intent or violation of statutory provisions, neither of which were established here.

The respondents had clearly stated the transfer was made on administrative grounds, and no mala fide intention was alleged or found.

The court underscored the established legal principle that transfer is an inherent aspect of transferable government service.

The court held that the transfer order dated March 28, 2022, was an administrative transfer in the same post and pay level, not a promotion.

Consequently, Rule 224 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-I, concerning refusal of promotion, was not applicable.

The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned transfer order, as there were no allegations of mala fide intent or lack of competency on the part of the officers who issued the orders.

No costs were awarded.