Transfer orders not subject to judicial interference unless malafide or violating statutory provisions.

The applicant, Gaurav Tripathi, a Senior Audit Officer, was transferred from the Direct Taxes Wing (Revenue Audit Wing) to the Central Expenditure Wing via an order dated July 26, 2022 (Annexure A-4)

The applicant contended that this transfer was unjust, arbitrary, and illogical as he had only served six years in the Revenue Audit Wing, contrary to the CAG HQ DO Letter dated January 29, 2010, which stipulated an eight-year tenure for personnel in that wing

The respondents argued that transfer and posting are administrative prerogatives based on requirements, and that the transfer order followed the recommendations of a Board of Officers in accordance with established guidelines, made on administrative grounds and in the interest of the organization

The respondents cited several Supreme Court judgments to support the principle that transfer is an essential condition of service and that courts should not interfere unless mala fides or statutory violations are shown

The applicant also sought directions for disciplinary action against certain officers of the department

Whether the transfer order dated July 26, 2022, transferring the applicant from the Direct Taxes Wing to the Central Expenditure Wing, was unjust, arbitrary, or in violation of established guidelines

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to direct the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to conduct inquiries or take disciplinary action against departmental officers based on the applicant's request

The court primarily applied the principle that transfer and posting are incidents and conditions of service, falling within the administration's purview, and that employees have no vested right to a particular posting

It relied on Supreme Court precedents, including *Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar* – AIR 1991 SC 532, which held that courts should ordinarily not interfere with transfer orders even if in violation of executive instructions, to avoid chaos in administration

*Union of India v. S.L. Abbas*-(1993)4SCC 357, *State of M.P v. Kourav* – AIR (1995) SC 1056, and *State of U.P v. Gobardhan Lal* – (2004) 11 SCC 402, were cited for the proposition that transfer is an essential condition of service

The judgment in *S.C. Saxena v. Union of India and others* (2006) 9 SCC 583 established that a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order and must first report for duty

*High Court of Judicature of Madras v. R. Perachi* (2011) 12 SCC 137 reiterated that judicial interference in transfers is limited to cases of mala fides or infraction of professed norms, and courts lack expertise in personnel management

The court also applied Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which defines the scope of applications to the Tribunal

The court found that while the applicant had not completed the eight-year tenure mentioned in the CAG HQ DO Letter dated January 29, 2010, this guideline did not confer a right to a specific posting, and the administration retained the right to transfer employees on administrative grounds, even prior to or beyond the specified tenure

The respondents had explicitly stated that the transfer was administrative and in the organization's interest, following due process by a Board of Officers

The court observed that the challenged transfer order was clear and allocated work, with no evidence of mala fides

Applying Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that transfer is a condition of service and should not be interfered with unless it's a result of mala fide exercise of power or violative of statutory provisions, neither of which was established by the applicant

Regarding the applicant's request for disciplinary action, the court found, in light of Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, defining "order" as one made by a government authority, that such a request was not maintainable before the Tribunal

It held that the transfer order dated July 26, 2022, was not unjust, arbitrary, or in violation of established guidelines, as the administration has the inherent right to transfer employees based on administrative requirements and in the interest of service

The court found no evidence of mala fides to warrant interference

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's request for disciplinary action against departmental officers was not maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Accordingly, Original Application No. 14 of 2025 was dismissed

No order as to costs was made