Transfer order issued as a punishment in lieu of disciplinary proceedings is a mala fide exercise of power.

The three applicants are Loco Running Staff (Senior Assistant Loco Pilot, Loco Pilot/Goods, and Loco Pilot/Mail) working at Ernakulam Junction in the Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway

On March 30, 2024, a video titled 'Siren' was released on YouTube by an association (AILRSA) depicting grievances regarding working conditions of loco pilots, in which the applicants acted as characters

The Railway administration alleged the video instigated staff to "break the rules" regarding rest hours

Consequently, the applicants were transferred via Annexure-A1 dated 25.06.2024 from Trivandrum Division to Villupuram in the Tiruchirappalli Division on "administrative grounds"

The applicants challenged the transfer as being punitive, mala fide, and issued by an incompetent authority

Applicant in O.A. 346/2024 specifically highlighted his role as a caregiver for his son with 80% permanent disability

1. Whether the impugned transfer order was issued by a competent authority as per the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC)

2. Whether the transfer, though labeled "administrative," was used as a cloak for punishment (punitive transfer) in lieu of disciplinary proceedings

3. Whether the transfer of the applicant in O.A. 346/2024 violated statutory protections for caregivers of persons with disabilities

The court primarily applied Rules 226 and 227 of the IREC Vol. I, which govern the transfer of Railway servants by competent authorities

It relied heavily on the precedent set in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India (2009) 2 SCC 592, which establishes that while an employer has the right to transfer in administrative exigencies, a transfer passed "in lieu of punishment" is mala fide and illegal

The court also considered Section 20(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and relevant DoPT Office Memoranda regarding the immunity from transfer for caregivers of disabled children

The Tribunal found that while the Respondents 2 and 3 had the legal authority to order inter-divisional transfers, the exercise of that authority was mala fide

The Respondents’ own reply statement and internal proposals (Annexure-R1) explicitly admitted that the transfer was provoked by the applicants' participation in the 'Siren' video and alleged violations of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules

The Tribunal reasoned that if the applicants had committed misconduct, the proper course was to initiate disciplinary proceedings rather than using transfer as a "short cut" to punishment

The court noted that transferring the applicants together to another division provided no guarantee that the alleged misconduct would not recur, further undermining the "public interest" argument

Regarding O.A. 346/2024, the court held that the applicant’s role in caring for a child with 80% disability necessitated sympathetic consideration, which the administration ignored

The Tribunal held that Annexure-A1 was punitive in nature and lacked genuine administrative justification, especially given the existing vacancies in the Trivandrum Division

The Tribunal quashed the transfer order (Annexure-A1) and allowed all three Original Applications, directing the respondents to allow the applicants to continue in their current station