Transfer orders cannot be interfered with absent mala fides or statutory violation.

The applicant, a Pointsman A posted at Sithauli Railway Station, was transferred to Ichauli by order dated 19 May 2021.

He challenged the transfer, contending that it was issued without obtaining permission from his Union and that he had previously been transferred twice to the same place, with both orders subsequently cancelled.

The Tribunal granted interim protection on 25 May 2021, pursuant to which he continued at Sithauli during the pendency of the application.

The respondents asserted that the transfer had been approved by the General Manager under Indian Railway Master Circular No. 24, paragraph 6, and that Union permission was unnecessary.

They also relied on the applicant’s arrest in a railway theft-related case, the pending criminal proceedings, the departmental charge-sheet, and his having remained at the same station for approximately five years, including after promotion.

The applicant argued that the transfer was punitive and founded on allegations of theft, and therefore required prior hearing.

Whether the transfer order dated 19 May 2021 was invalid for having been issued without obtaining permission from the applicant’s Union.

Whether the transfer was punitive, mala fide, or based on extraneous considerations, thereby warranting judicial interference.

Whether the applicant acquired a right to remain posted at Sithauli because of the interim protection granted during the pendency of the proceedings and his subsequent promotion.

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and that the competent administrative authority has discretion to decide who should be transferred and where, as stated in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357.

Relying on State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav, (1995) 3 SCC 270, it held that courts and tribunals should not interfere with administrative transfer decisions unless they are vitiated by mala fides, extraneous considerations, lack of factual foundation, or legal infirmity.

Under National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574, interference is impermissible merely because the court might prefer a different administrative decision, unless the transfer violates statutory provisions or results from mala fide exercise of power.

The Tribunal also considered Indian Railway Master Circular No. 24, paragraph 6, under which the transfer was stated to have been approved by the General Manager.

The Tribunal found no material establishing that the transfer authority lacked competence, that the order violated any statutory rule, or that it was actuated by mala fides or extraneous considerations.

The respondents’ explanation—that the order was approved by the General Manager under the applicable Railway circular—undermined the objection regarding Union permission.

Although the applicant alleged that the transfer was punitive and connected with the theft complaint, the Tribunal held that the record did not demonstrate a legally recognisable mala fide or punitive exercise of power sufficient to displace the administration’s transfer discretion.

The applicant’s continued posting at Sithauli for more than five years under interim protection did not create a vested right to remain there, and his subsequent promotion likewise did not confer such a right.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review over transfers, the Tribunal declined to substitute its decision for that of the competent railway authority.

The Original Application challenging the transfer dated 19 May 2021 was accordingly dismissed.

The interim relief granted on 25 May 2021 was vacated, and no order as to costs was made.