Transfer on vigilance grounds is valid when the underlying irregularities are substantiated.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Assistant Branch Postmaster (GDS ABPM), challenged his transfer from D. Rajulur Branch Office to Madanapalle Head Office on vigilance grounds.

The respondents stated that a complaint had led to an inquiry into the applicant’s nomination of his wife, who was ineligible and did not work, as a substitute at another post, while salary was drawn in her name.

The applicant disputed responsibility and relied on family and health circumstances.

After directing consideration of his representation and temporarily allowing him to remain at his post, the Tribunal considered the respondents’ inquiry findings and the reasoned rejection of his representation

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer on vigilance grounds was unsupported by evidence or otherwise unlawful

2. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the transfer, having regard to the applicant’s challenge to his responsibility for the substitute-related irregularity and his personal circumstances

Under Rule 7 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, a GDS must arrange for an approved substitute during leave; the Tribunal also relied on the rule and instructions making the GDS responsible for the substitute’s conduct

Paragraph B(ii) of the Department of Posts’ Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2019 permits transfer of a GDS on vigilance grounds where regular complaints are substantiated by documentary evidence

Applying the principles in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., the Tribunal reiterated that transfer is ordinarily an administrative matter and judicial interference is limited to cases involving mala fides, breach of statutory provisions, or comparable illegality

The Tribunal found that the inquiry and record supported the conclusion that the applicant had nominated his wife as substitute, although she was ineligible and had not worked, and that salary had been credited in her name.

The leave orders placed responsibility for the substitute on the GDS holding additional charge; the applicant had not challenged those orders or the recovery made from him.

The Tribunal considered the missing leave application insufficient to outweigh the other evidence, including the substitute’s recorded admission.

It therefore held that the case fell within the vigilance-transfer policy and disclosed no perversity or other basis for judicial interference.

The applicant’s representation had also been disposed of by a reasoned order

It vacated the interim order staying the transfer, closed any pending miscellaneous applications and made no order as to costs