AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A):
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
i.To quash and set aside the order dated 15.09.2025 and 29.09.2025 as contained in Annexure A/1 and A/3 respectively both issued by the respondent no. 5 with the approval of respondent no. 7.
ii.To quash and set aside the consequential order dated 18.09.2025 as contained in Annexure A/2 issued by the respondent no. 6.
iii.Further, to direct and command the respondents to allow the applicant to continue at Sarath, Madhupur without any disturbance.
iv.Further, to direct and command the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits in favour of the applicant for which he is legally entitled to.
v.Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the applicant.
The brief facts of the case, as per the instant O.A., are discussed and delineated as follows:
The applicant was initially engaged as casual labour in the year 1988 and granted temporary status with effect from 09.03.1998.
Bench 2.2 While the applicant was working under Department, the respondents have issued order dated 20.01.1999 whereby order dated 09.03.1998 has been kept in abeyance without any rhyme and reason.
Thereafter, the applicant and others have filed one Original Application before this Tribunal vide OA No. 144/1999 which was allowed and the said order dated 20.01.1999 cancelling/keeping abeyance the temporary status granted to the applicant and others has been set aside and the respondents have been directed to reinstate them with liberty to enquire into the allegations of submitting forged certificates after giving appropriate opportunity to participate in the enquiry and to take appropriate action in the light of enquiry report.
On 07.01.2002, respondents have issued letter directing the applicant and others to submit their work diary and the same was submitted on 16.01.2002 under clear receipt. Thereafter, the applicant and others were reinstated in the service on 25.01.2002 and subsequently, on 08.07.2002, the respondents have conducted verification with their work diary which was found correct and genuine.
Thereafter, the respondents’ competent authority of BSNL has constituted Departmental Screening Committee (DPC) for consideration of their regular absorption against permanent post. The Screening Committee recommended for their regularization and thereafter applicant and others have been regularized against Group ‘D’ post of Regular Mazdoor w.e.f. 06.02.2002.
In spite of having completed more than eight years of service from the date of regularization and being deprived of their due promotions to the post of Telephone Mechanic whereas their juniors have been granted with the said promotional benefits including up-gradation under NEPP Scheme, the applicant and others have filed various Original Application for redressal of their grievances which were allowed on various dates lastly on 24.03.2015.
Patna 2.7 On 28.05.2015, the applicant and other 11 persons have been terminated on the same ground of their initial engagement as casual labour based on forged and fabricated working certificates against which they have filed OA No. 424/2015 and 430/2015 in which this Tribunal has stayed the termination order. The respondents BSNL have assailed the Tribunal’s order before the Hon’ble Patna High Court but the same was also dismissed.
When the respondents did not succeed in their illegal attempts in ousting the applicant and others, hence after more than 15 years, they issued charge memorandum on 29.12.2016 alleging the same allegation of securing appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated working certificate. Again the applicant and other 11 persons have filed Original Application No. 335 of 2017 which was also allowed on 01.08.2017 and the said charge memorandum has been quashed.
The respondents have challenged the said order of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court and the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the judgment/order passed by this Tribunal in the OA. Then the respondents have filed Special Leave to Petition (Civil) No. 29396 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which has also been dismissed on 02.11.2018.
Again, the respondents, when did not succeeded in their foul play, lodged one First Information Report vide Deoghar Police Station Case No. 94 of 2019 for the same allegation of procuring appointment on forged working certificates. The applicant and others have moved before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court for grant of Anticipatory Bail which was granted vide order dated 26.06.2019.
The respondents have placed the applicant and others under suspension on the basis of said FIR. Being aggrieved of this, they have filed one case before this Tribunal vide OA No. 752 of 2019. Thereafter, the respondents have revoked the Patna suspension but the period of suspension has not been regularized for payment of arrears and thus said OA is still pending for adjudication.
When the respondents not succeeded again in their foul play, they issued orders on 03.03.2020 and 04.09.2021 for administrative review of the order dated 09.03.1998 and also to review the DPC dated 11.07.2002. The applicant and others have filed two OAs before this Tribunal in which ad-interim relief was granted and finally both OAs have been allowed on 19.08.2025 (Annexure A-4a)
The respondents have not implemented the orders; hence applicant has sent one application under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information for not being granted due benefits (Annexure A-4b).
The applicant has received one contemptuous reply showing due to pendency of charge-sheet dated 29.12.2016, the matter regarding the benefits claimed is pending. The applicant has sent an appeal under RTI Act to the respondent no. 4 (respondent no. 7 in person) on 10.06.2025 but instead of giving reply, the said respondent no. 7 has threatened the applicant stating that if any RTI application is received, he has no option other than to transfer the applicant in remote rural areas (Annexure A-6). Thereafter, the applicant has sent a representation dated 10.06.2025 to respondent no. 1 informing the situation and his safeguard which is self-explanatory (Annexure A-7).
Thereafter, the applicant has sent RTI application on 16.06.2025 (Annexure A-8). He received another contemptuous reply alongwith letter dated 24.06.2025 informing that due to pendency of charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 the matter regarding benefits claimed is pending. (Annexure A-9 series).
Thereafter, the applicant has sent first appeal before the respondent no. 4 (respondent no. 7 by name) on 22.07.2025 (Annexure A-10) but getting torture and malicious harassment at the hands of respondent no. 7. He sent an Patna application informing the Chief Information Commissioner regarding this harassment and threatening.
The applicant has received letter dated 28.07.2025 issued by BSNL Circle Office, Ranchi and letter dated 01.08.2025 by the office of respondent no. 7 which both are not only contradictory but no information in respect of reply of demanded by the applicant has been given till date. (Annexure A-11 & A-12).
Due to ill health, he has sent application on 18.09.2025 to the respondent no. 6 for granting 15 days leave enclosing with medical certificate. (Annexure A-13).
During the sick period, the applicant has shocked to know about the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) issued by the respondent no. 5 with the approval of respondent no. 7 whereby he has been ordered to be transferred from Sarath, Mudhupur to Amarapara (Pakur) in a remote area at the distance of 140 km which are not only arbitrary, malafide, malicious, punitive but also by way of punishment and contrary to Para -13 (iv) and 13(4) of the Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2014 and 26.12.2024 applicable for non-executive employees. Apart from above the impugned order is discriminatory and contrary to said transfer policy which talks about calling willingness first and if in case no option, received, such transfer is to be made amongst the persons posted for long period at one place whereas applicant has posted at Sarath only on 05.11.2020.
The respondent no.7 has rejected the applicant’s leave and the respondent no. 6 has communicated about order dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure A-15) to the applicant through Whatsapp regarding relieving of applicant although he has not been relieved till date due to his medical sick (Annexure A-16).
Thereafter, the applicant filed OA No. 688 of 2025 which was disposed of on 24.09.2025 with direction to decide representation. [A/18]. The applicant sent representation to the respondent No.1 on 29.09.2025 [A/21]. However, it was Patna rejected by respondent no. 1. Hence, the instant Original Application.
Per contra, the Respondents have contested the case by filing written statements in which it was stated that:
The transfer of the applicant, Sri Kamlesh Kant Yadav, from Sarath Station to Amrapara Station on September 15, 2025 (Annexure R-1) was done strictly for administrative reasons and urgent public necessity. The applicant is an Assistant Telecom Technician working under the Dumka Operational Area. His transfer became necessary because Amrapara station handles critical optical fiber routes that provide essential communication lines for the Singharsi Air Force Station in Pakur. Following recent defense and security needs, uninterrupted telecom connectivity for these military circuits is mandatory. Because Amrapara station lacked a permanent staff member and an operational generator to prevent power failures, posting a capable technical worker there was an absolute organizational emergency to avoid heavy penalties and service outages.
The applicant was specifically chosen for this move because his previous station at Sarath is already closed with no working landlines, leaving only a mobile tower maintained entirely by an outside vendor. Furthermore, records showed that the applicant frequently misused the online attendance portal while staying away from his duty place, and zero new revenue or broadband connections were generated under his watch at Sarath. Moving him caused the least disruption to BSNL services compared to shifting any other active staff member who is needed at major stations.
The applicant's claims that this transfer is a punishment for filing RTI applications or is linked to his pending criminal case regarding recruitment fraud are completely false. Previous RTI queries from past years were always answered routinely without any malice or bias. Furthermore, the BSNL Corporate Office letter restricting transfers only applies to Patna executive managers, not to Group C and D non-executive staff like the applicant.
Finally, as directed by this Tribunal, the respondents carefully reviewed the applicant's representation and passed a detailed, reasoned speaking order on September 29, 2025, upholding the transfer. The applicant has already joined his new assignment at Amrapara on October 18, 2025, and is currently working there. Therefore, the present Original Application lacks merit, and no interim relief or reversal of the transfer order should be granted, as it would severely harm critical defense communication services.
Ld. counsel for applicant has filed the rejoinder in which it was stated that:
First, the respondents claim that the applicant was transferred to Amrapara in administrative interest to look after the Singharsi Air Force Station. This claim is completely false because Amrapara and Singharsi are at entirely different locations. The malicious intent behind this transfer becomes clear when looking at the facts: another employee, Sri Indra Deo Yadav, was transferred away from Amrapara on 16.09.2023, and the station was left vacant for two whole years without any urgency. Furthermore, outsourced staff is already handling such stations, proving that the applicant has been unfairly targeted and made a scapegoat.
Second, the transfer order clearly violates the official BSNL Transfer Policy. The applicant was born on 10.02.1970, meaning he has already crossed 55 years of age. Under Section-1(D), Para-13(iii) of the Transfer Policy dated 24.11.2014, employees over 55 years old must be protected from such transfers. Additionally, the policy requires calling for volunteers or transferring employees with the longest station stay first. The respondents completely ignored these rules and singled out the applicant while other employees with much longer stays were left untouched.
Third, the respondents have violated their own updated Patna transfer guidelines issued on 30.06.2025, 03.10.2025, and 11.08.2025, which explicitly state that no transfer orders should be issued during this period unless there is a true emergency and approval from the Director (HR), BSNL.
Finally, despite an assurance given to this Tribunal on 16.10.2025 to protect the applicant from harassment, the respondents have continued to victimize him. They illegally withheld his salary from 18.09.2025 to 24.09.2025, rejected his genuine medical leave, and raised unnecessary technical objections right before the court hearing.
Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the illegal transfer order dated 15.09.2025, direct the respondents to release his unpaid salary and grant his medical leave, and protect him from ongoing harassment.
Learned counsel for respondents has filed reply to the rejoinder filed by counsel for applicant in which the respondents have stated that:
The transfer of the applicant from Sarath to Amrapara was effected purely on compelling administrative grounds and in the public interest, specifically to maintain uninterrupted telecommunication services for vital defense installations like Airforce Station Singarshi under the Network Spectrum (NFS) project, to avoid severe service penalties.
The applicant's station at Sarath has a closed telephone exchange with only an automated mobile BTS tower that is fully managed and maintained by outsourced vendors, with negligible local revenue generation. Conversely, Amrapara faced frequent technical disruptions and power outages after becoming unmanned, necessitating the immediate deployment of an experienced staff member like the applicant based on minimum staff mobility.
The respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the BSNL Employees Transfer Policy dated 07-05-2008, which remains fully effective, whereas the draft policy cited by the applicant is merely a proposal under consideration. Furthermore, the transfer order is completely independent of Patna any RTI applications filed by the applicant or his group, as previous RTI queries and appeals were duly addressed by the authorities in the regular course of statutory duties.
The applicant's absence from 18.09.2025 to 17.10.2025 prior to joining at Amrapara was unauthorized. His online leave request submitted on medical grounds was duly rejected because he failed to provide the necessary supporting medical documents despite sufficient opportunity, making the withholding of salary for the unexcused absence period legally justified.
The respondents' inquiry into educational qualification documents applies uniformly to 14 officials whose records were missing from the ERP-SAP system and Service Books, and the applicant's refusal to submit his testimonials reflects an unwarranted withholding of official records rather than any victimization.
In view of the facts, circumstances, and administrative exigencies detailed above, the transfer order and departmental actions are entirely valid and lawful.
After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and perusal of the material available before this Tribunal, We have considered the matter in its entirety and arrived at following conclusions:
The applicant, Shri Kamlesh Kant Yadav, working against Group-D post of Assistant Telecom Technician, has faced continuous, recurring attempts by the respondents to oust or penalize him since 1998, which have consistently been struck down by this Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Courts, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including termination orders, charge memorandums dated 29.12.2016 alleging forged working certificates, and subsequent criminal FIRs—were successfully challenged and quashed by judicial forums.
The latest transfer order issued on 15.09.2025 (Annexure A/1) under the guise of an administrative exigency is a direct continuation of this systemic institutional malice, following closely on the heels of the applicant filing RTI queries and the Tribunal allowing previous OAs on 19.08.2025.
The respondents claimed an urgent public necessity to man the Amrapara station for defense communications (Air force Station Singarshi). However, records demonstrate that another employee (Sri Indra Deo Yadav) was transferred away from Amrapara on 16.09.2023, leaving the station vacant for over two years without any apparent emergency, and the station was managed by outsourced staff in the interim. This completely exposes the false urgency claimed by the management.
The respondents have also violated the Statutory of Transfer Policies and Age Protections.Under Section-(D), Para-13(iii) of the applicable Transfer Policy dated 07.05.2008 (corrected upto 24.11.2014), it was clearly mentioned that:
“Generally, transfer of employees who are more than 55 years of age as on 31st March of that financial year would be avoided for posting to tenure stations. Employees of 56 years or more (as on 31st March of the particular financial year) shall normally be exempted from transfers involving change of station. However, they can be rotated on the basis of seat/section tenure at the same station.”
The applicant was born on 10.02.1970 and was over 55 years of age (running 56) at the time of the transfer order on 15.09.2025. Accordingly, the employees over 55 years of age are protected from such arbitrary transfers.
Further, under Section-(D), Para-13(iv) of the applicable Transfer Policy states that:
“Circles will evolve the policy for rotation of staff so that rural areas are adequately staffed. For transfer to unpopular stations identified as tenure station within a Circle/SSA, tenure period shall be two years. Competent authority for Patna notifying unpopular stations for the purpose of Bench tenure shall be the concerned Head of Circle. For effecting transfers to such tenure stations, system of calling volunteers would be adopted & in the event of not getting adequate volunteers, employees of the cadre having longest stay at the station shall be transferred. Such transferred employees shall be eligible for choice posting on completion of the tenure, if necessary, by transferring out other employees with longest stay at that station. Posting of unwilling female employees to such tenure stations would be avoided. Persons posted at tenure stations may be allowed to continue even beyond two years tenure if they so volunteer. However, they would be subjected to the prevailing tenure limits.”
The transfer policy mandates calling for volunteers first, and if not available, transferring the person with the longest stay at a station. The respondents completely bypassed these mandatory procedural safeguards.
Moreover, under Section-(D), Para-13.4 of the Transfer Policy dated 26.12.2024 reiterated the same thing which is as under:
“For adequately manning the post of rural and unpopular areas and to provide timely replacement of staff working in such areas, circles will evolve the policy of transfer of staff on rotation basis based on the following guidelines and with due regard to local requirements.
(i)Tenure for notified unpopular station will be 03 years. Competent Authority for notifying unpopular stations with the Circle/SSAs for the purpose of tenure shall be concerned Head of Circle.
(ii)Tenure for Rural Area (other than those identified as unpopular stations) will be 04 years. Request for transfer, at own cost, shall normally be entertained after at least 02 years in a station. Competent Authority for notifying rural areas with the Circle/BAs for the purpose of tenure shall be concerned Head of Circle.
(iii)For effecting transfer to rural and unpopular stations, system of calling volunteers will be adopted and in the event of not getting adequate volunteers, employees in the order of station tenure i.e. the employee with longest station stay will be considered for transfer.”
The respondents' defense relies heavily on broad, generalized, and platitudinous statements regarding "management rights" and "transfer as an incidence of service", while failing to answer specific queries or justify why an isolated, punitive single transfer was targeted at the applicant. There is no explanation as to violation of the transfer policy that has been formulated by the respondents themselves.
Pleadings and arguments attempting to label the applicant's legitimate grievances as "playing the victim card" or questioning a Group-D employee's right to question posting locations fail to override statutory protections, binding judicial precedents, and proven facts of malafide intent.
The impugned transfer order dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure A/1), the consequential relieving order dated 18.09.2025 (Annexure A/2), and the subsequent rejection order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure A/3) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to continue at Sarath, Madhupur, and grant all consequential benefits to which he is legally entitled without further harassment.
With these observations, the Original Application is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.