Jammu, June 06: In O.A./713/2025 (JAMMU) titled RAJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs HOME DEPARTMENT after hearing CAT ordered as under:-
The applicant has approached this Tribunal assailing Order No. 1205 of 2025 dated 22.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”), whereby the respondents have invoked Rule 352 (Power to Suspend Pending Enquiry or Investigation) and Rule 353 (Suspension in Departmental Cases) of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, and in furtherance thereof, have ordered the transfer of the applicant to IRP22nd Battalion against the post of ASI (M).
2. The applicant contends that the said action has been taken despite the indulgence already granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2025 in O.A. No. 414/2025, wherein the Tribunal had taken cognizance of the grievance raised by the applicant concerning the initiation of a fifth consecutive Departmental Enquiry on the same set of allegations which had already been subjected to earlier enquiries.
3. It is further contended that the impugned order is also in disregard of the earlier order dated 18.04.2024 passed in O.A. No. 423/2024, wherein this Tribunal had granted relief to the applicant in respect of similar allegations.
4. According to the applicant, the respondents have resorted to invoking the powers under Rules 352 and 353 of the J&K Police Rules in an arbitrary and mala fide manner, with the sole intent to circumvent the interim protections granted by this Tribunal. The applicant asserts that the transfer order is a pretext to initiate suspension proceedings under the garb of administrative exigency.
5. The applicant submits that the said action is in clear violation of the binding orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal, which had stayed the Departmental Enquiry and wherein the matter remains sub judice in O.A. Nos. 414/2025 and 423/2024.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the applicant.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. Transfer is an integral part of service in any government or public sector organization. It is a managerial prerogative exercised in the interest of administrative efficiency and public service exigency.
A government employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place.
9. In the present matter, the transfer order has been issued in accordance with established norms and no material has been placed on record to suggest that the transfer is actuated by mala fides or is in violation of statutory provisions.
The legal position in this regard is well settled through a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as elaborated below: National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held: “No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or at a place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.”
“Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management.”
This decision underscores that the scope for judicial review in transfer matters is extremely limited and exists only when there is prima facie evidence of mala fide or legal/statutory violation. Shilpi Bose & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 532 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case observed:
“The courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide.”
“A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other.”
This judgment reaffirms that the mere inconvenience or personal preference of an employee cannot be a ground to challenge a routine administrative transfer. Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 This is one of the leading judgments on the law of transfers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide.
Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision, the Courts or Tribunals have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer.”
“The guidelines laid down for effecting transfers or for not transferring an employee during a particular period are in the nature of administrative instructions and do not confer any enforceable legal right.”
This ruling emphasizes that administrative guidelines relating to tenure or posting are not statutory in nature and cannot form the basis of a legal challenge unless statutory provisions are violated.
In view of the settled position of law and the facts of the present case, where the applicant has completed his normal tenure and no prima facie case of mala fide or statutory violation is made out, the interference of this Court at this stage is not warranted.
Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is declined. List on 14.07.2025.
|