Facts
The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer (Loco) in Group ‘C’ at Sahibganj (Malda Division), challenged his transfer order dated 14.11.2025 and relieving order dated 18.11.2025.
Source reference: p. 3He was previously transferred within the same division on 07.04.2025.
Source reference: p. 10On 28.10.2025, during an inspection by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (AME), allegations of misbehavior, intoxication, and tampering with CCTV evidence were leveled against the applicant.
Source reference: p. 5-6, 9Consequently, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated, and the applicant was briefly suspended.
Source reference: p. 3, 12While the inquiry was pending, the respondents issued an Inter-Divisional transfer order from Malda to Sealdah Division on administrative grounds.
Source reference: p. 6, 12Issues
1. Whether the frequent transfer of the applicant within seven months violates the Master Circular regarding the transfer of non-gazetted railway employees.
Source reference: p. 112. Whether a transfer order issued during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding, following an incident of alleged misconduct, constitutes a punitive/colorable exercise of power.
Source reference: p. 14, 193. Whether the Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) was the competent authority to order an Inter-Divisional transfer.
Source reference: p. 16-17Law Applied
Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) Vol-I, Chapter 2, Para 226, which empowers the administration to transfer railway servants on administrative exigencies.
Source reference: p. 8Para 6.1(i) of the Master Circular on Transfer, which stipulates that employees in sensitive posts should typically be transferred after four years.
Source reference: p. 11Para 14(a) of Master Circular No. 67 (2019), which prohibits the transfer of non-gazetted staff during pending disciplinary inquiries to avoid difficulties in finalizing proceedings.
Source reference: p. 14-15Devendra Nath Bagh v. UOI, establishing that Inter-Divisional transfers must be passed by the President or General Manager (or a specifically delegated authority).
Source reference: p. 17-18Ramadhar Pandey v. State of UP regarding the nature of punitive transfers.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant's transfer occurred only seven months after his prior transfer, contradicting the general four-year tenure policy.
Source reference: p. 11Factually, the sequence of events—alleged misconduct on 28.10.2025, suspension, revocation, and immediate Inter-Divisional transfer while an inquiry was active—indicated that the transfer was not a routine administrative move but a "cloak for punishment".
Source reference: p. 18-19The respondents failed to prove that the Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) had the delegated authority from the General Manager or President required for Inter-Divisional transfers under Para 13 of the Master Circular.
Source reference: p. 16-17The Tribunal noted that transferring an employee under investigation complicates the disciplinary process and violates the specific prohibitions in Master Circular No. 67.
Source reference: p. 15, 20Holding
The Tribunal answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the transfer was not bonafide and suffered from a colorable exercise of power.
The OA was allowed; the transfer order dated 14.11.2025 and the relieving order dated 18.11.2025 were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to take necessary consequential steps to restore the applicant's position within sixty days.
Source reference: p. 20Original Court PDF
MUKESH KUMARvsEASTERN RAILWAY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in