Transfer order cannot impede an employee's right to defend criminal or departmental proceedings.

The applicant, an Indian Revenue Service officer, was serving as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad in 2021.

His actions led to the disclosure of approximately Rs. 50 crores of unaccounted income from the BSafal Group of Ahmedabad.

Subsequently, an FIR was registered against him on October 4, 2022, by the Gujarat State Anti-Corruption Bureau, later transferred to the CBI.

On October 7, 2022, he was transferred as Officer on Special Duty, and then on October 10, 2022, to Jorhat in the North Eastern Region.

This initial transfer was challenged in O.A. No. 434 of 2022, which was withdrawn with liberty to make a representation, but his representation was rejected.

Anticipatory bail was granted but later set aside by the Supreme Court, leading to his surrender and regular bail being granted on October 27, 2023, with conditions restricting his movement outside Gujarat without court permission.

His subsequent plea for revocation of transfer based on bail conditions was denied, leading him to file O.A. No. 1152 of 2024 before the Principal Bench of the CAT, which quashed the October 10, 2022, transfer order on December 19, 2024.

This decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court on July 14, 2025.

During May 2025, the Department coordinated with the CBI to modify his bail conditions, allegedly misrepresenting that the previous transfer order had been "withdrawn" instead of "quashed".

The Sessions Court, based on this, modified his bail conditions on May 16, 2025, to allow him to leave Gujarat without prior permission.

The applicant was suspended on November 18, 2022.

His suspension was revoked on June 20, 2025, and on the same day, Transfer Order No. 162/2025 was issued, transferring him to the North Eastern Region, followed by a posting order to Guwahati on June 25, 2025.

His suspension was later quashed by the Tribunal on July 28, 2025.

The applicant has not received salary since September 2022 or subsistence allowance during suspension, despite multiple representations.

He faces eleven distinct proceedings primarily in Ahmedabad and New Delhi, requiring frequent appearances.

His family resides in Ahmedabad, and he has specific medical conditions.

1. Whether the Transfer/Placement Order No. 162/2025 dated June 20, 2025, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), transferring the applicant to the North Eastern Region and Guwahati, can be sustained in law given the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the jurisdictional objection raised by the respondents is legally tenable.

3. Whether the respondents are obligated to release the withheld salary and subsistence allowance to the applicant.

The court primarily applied the principle that transfer is an incidence of service, and courts generally do not interfere unless the order is vitiated by mala fides, statutory violation, or colourable exercise of power.

However, this principle is not absolute, and judicial review is not excluded where a transfer, though styled as administrative, results in substantial impairment of constitutional or legal rights.

The court also referred to the facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to livelihood and the right to fair trial, asserting that administrative discretion under Fundamental Rule 11 and Transfer/Placement Guidelines cannot be exercised in a manner that effectively disables an employee from defending himself in pending criminal and departmental proceedings.

Furthermore, Clause 6 of the CBDT Transfer and Placement Guidelines, 2010, mandates consideration of compassionate and medical grounds, which must be meaningfully evaluated by the Placement Committee.

The Supreme Court's ruling in *Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India* was cited for the principle that transfer cannot be used as a substitute for punishment or based on presumed guilt in a criminal case.

The court found several undisputed facts significant.

The impugned transfer order was issued the same day the applicant's suspension was revoked.

The applicant faces multiple criminal and departmental proceedings in Ahmedabad and New Delhi, necessitating frequent appearances.

The considerable distance to Guwahati imposes significant logistical and financial burdens, rendering his ability to defend himself illusory.

The respondents’ justification for the transfer, that the applicant should be away from the region where the FIR was registered, had been previously considered and rejected by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in an earlier litigation, where the transfer was found unsustainable on grounds affecting the applicant’s right to a fair defense under Article 21.

The court noted that no new material was presented to justify reiterating this previous unsustainable relocation.

The timing of the suspension revocation and immediate transfer suggested a punitive intent, rendering the reinstatement illusory and warranting closer scrutiny.

The court emphasized that administrative discretion, while broad, cannot override the fundamental rights under Article 21, specifically the right to livelihood and fair trial.

The Placement Committee minutes did not reflect due consideration of the balancing exercise between institutional interest and the applicant's need to defend himself, nor did they show a meaningful evaluation of compassionate and medical grounds as required by Clause 6 of the Guidelines.

The court also deemed the jurisdictional objection untenable, as the impugned order originated in New Delhi, and the respondents had previously participated in similar litigation before the same Principal Bench without raising such objections.

The delay in processing salary and subsistence allowance claims was also found to be unjustifiable.

Accordingly, the orders dated June 20, 2025, June 25, 2025, and September 25, 2025, were set aside.

The respondents were directed to issue appropriate posting orders placing the applicant at Ahmedabad, New Delhi, or any other nearby station where the majority of his proceedings are conducted, within two months, to ensure he can effectively defend himself.

Furthermore, the respondents were directed to process and release all admissible withheld salary and subsistence allowance dues within eight weeks, with compensatory interest at the applicable GPF rate if found unjustifiably withheld.

The Original Application was allowed, with no order as to costs.