AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
Issue notice to the respondents. Shri S. Ravi, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service. Heard him also.
The applicant has filed this OA seeking to quash the impugned transfer order dated 31.07.2026 (Annexure A-1) by which he has been transferred from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) to Roha on the vigilance advice.
It is the case of the applicant that he was transferred from LTT on 25.12.2025 while working as Head Booking Clerk (HBC) on 21.04.2021. There was preventive vigilance check on 03.04.2026 when the applicant was not at his seat at the booking office. Some other booking clerk has taken seat at booking counter. Through the surprise check of vigilance team, there was alleged excess recovery of Rs.741/- as railway cash and Rs.70/- as private cash which the applicant claims is wrongly attributed to him as he was not present at the counter. Thereafter, no disciplinary proceedings were taken against him till date. However, by the impugned order, he has been transferred to Roha on the vigilance advice.
It is the case of the applicant that the Railway Board vide instruction No.E(NG)I/2019/TR/10 dated 17.08.2023 issued a Master Circular on the subject 'Transfer of Non-Gazetted Railway employees'. Para 6.3.1 of the said Master Circular deals with the transfers orders at the instance of vigilance. It has been provided in the above para 'In order to ensure that there is no harassment and/or victimization on this account, the DRM in respect of Divisionally controlled staff and the CPO(A) in respect of Headquarters controlled staff may hear representations of genuine grievance, if any made before a final decision is taken to effect the transfer'.
Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Nagrani submits that immediately after issuance of the impugned order, the applicant has submitted a representation dated 03.08.2026 to the respondents which is still pending. He, therefore, submits that till his representation is decided, the impugned transfer order should be stayed or the OA may be disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide his representation in a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for the respondents Shri S. Ravi appearing on advance notice submits that the impugned order has been passed on the administrative ground on the vigilance advice. He submits that the applicant has been transferred from LTT to Roha which is only about 120 km away and the applicant, being a railway employee, can travel by train which takes less than one hour. Shri S. Ravi further submits that though the applicant claims to have made a representation on 03.08.2026, however, the same is not received by the respondents. He further submits that after issuance of the impugned transfer order, the applicant has proceeded on sick leave from 01.08.2026 and he is still on sick leave. He further submits that the applicant has been relieved yesterday i.e. on 03.08.2026 in his absence.
Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Nagrani in his rejoinder submits that the said relieving order has not been served upon the applicant as he is on sick leave and, therefore, the applicant cannot be said to have been relieved. He further submits that there is clear violation of the Railway Board Master Circular as the representation of the applicant has not been considered and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal as the same has been issued in violation of the Master Circular dated 17.08.2023 which is binding on railway authorities.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings available on record.
Since the representation was made by the applicant on 03.08.2026 against the impugned transfer order dated 31.07.2026, I am of the view that the respondents should be given a reasonable time to consider and dispose of the representation. However, Shri S. Ravi submits that the respondents have not received the copy of the representation. Therefore, the applicant is directed to serve a copy of it to the competent authority within two days.
Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of at the admission stage itself with the direction to the respondents to decide the applicant's representation dated 03.08.2026 in accordance with the applicable rules, circulars, OMs, Notifications etc. by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondents shall serve the applicant with a copy of the speaking order and shall not relieve him till service of speaking order and for a period of seven days thereafter, in case of non-acceptance of the request in the representation.
It is made clear that no observation has been made on the merits of the matter and all contentions are kept open.
The Original Application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above directions. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.