Transfer Order Issued with Malice and Without Application of Mind is Quashed.

The applicant, Suja.G., an Administrative Officer at the Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical & Engineering Training (CIFNET), challenged her transfer from Kochi headquarters to the Chennai unit per Annexure A-5 order dated July 30, 2025, and the subsequent rejection of her representation via Annexure A-9 office order

She initially joined the service as an LDC in 1998, was promoted to UDC in 2005, and later transferred to CIFNET due to an integration

In June 2019, she was promoted to Office Superintendent and posted in Chennai, but was transferred back to Kochi in June 2023 after multiple requests

She was promoted to Administrative Officer in October 2024 and was transferred to Chennai less than a year later

The applicant, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, alleged bias, ill-will, and a motive to promote another officer, Shri.Algarsami

She highlighted her caregiving responsibilities for her ailing mother and medical vulnerabilities, including hypertension and acute lumbo sacral strain

She contended that there were no exigencies of service as the Administrative Officer's post in Chennai had been vacant since 2013 and subsequently abolished, with the work being handled by technical officers

The 1st respondent had directed the 2nd respondent to consider the applicant's representation compassionately and hold the transfer in abeyance, but the transfer was confirmed

Whether the transfer order (Annexure A-5) and the subsequent order upholding it (Annexure A-9) were arbitrary, mala fide, and lacked administrative reasonableness

Whether the 2nd respondent failed to consider the applicant's compassionate grounds, medical issues, and caregiving responsibilities when rejecting her representation

The Tribunal implicitly applied principles of administrative law regarding judicial review of discretionary powers, particularly transfers, focusing on whether such decisions are arbitrary, mala fide, or demonstrate non-application of mind.

It considered the need for administrative reasonableness and the duty to act with sensitivity, especially when dealing with personal and medical concerns raised by an employee

The judgment also highlighted the importance of adhering to directives from higher authorities regarding compassionate consideration of representations

The Tribunal found that the transfer of the applicant, a gazetted officer, was untimely and abrupt, citing no administrative crisis in Chennai to justify an immediate posting to a post that had been vacant since 2013 and abolished

The Tribunal highlighted that the headquarters itself lacked an alternative system for handling the AO position, and the process to fill the Chennai post by deputation was already underway, suggesting malice and administrative unreasonableness

The Tribunal noted the 1st respondent's clear directive to consider the applicant's representation compassionaly due to her medical and personal issues, yet Annexure A-9 order showed no application of mind to these matters

Although not delving into caste and gender discrimination allegations due to a pending complaint with the SC/ST Commission, the Tribunal deprecated the lack of sensitivity in handling the entire issue

The respondents' argument that the post of AO was revived for Chennai was not deemed sufficient justification for an abrupt transfer, especially when CIFNET itself had recommended filling the AO post at headquarters

Annexure A-5 order transferring the applicant from CIFNET Headquarters at Kochi to the Chennai Unit and Annexure A-9 order holding Annexure A-5 order as valid are struck down

Consequently, M.A.180/953/2025 filed by the respondents to vacate the interim stay is dismissed

No order as to costs was made