Manoj Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors.

The Applicant was appointed in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) on 31.12.2009 as Lower Division Clerk and was subsequently promoted as Senior Secretariat Assistant (SSA). He was transferred to and joined JNV, Bikram, Patna, in August 2022 and was working there as SSA when, to his surprise, Respondent No. 4 passed an order dated 13.05.2025 under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, placing him under suspension. By the same order, his headquarters during the period of suspension was shifted to JNV, Nadia, West Bengal, which, according to the Applicant, was punitive, arbitrary, irrational and without competence.

Immediately thereafter, on 14.05.2025, the Applicant submitted a representation against the said order, specifically bringing on record the serious illness of his wife and other genuine difficulties, supported by relevant documents. However, without granting any relief, the Respondents rejected the representation on 21.05.2025 and compelled the Applicant to report at JNV, Nadia. The ^Bench Applicant had already challenged the suspension order and shifting of headquarters by filing OA No. 362 of 2025 on 15.05.2025. As no stay was granted in the said matter, the Applicant, under Central Administrative Tribunal^{compulsion, reported at JNV, Nadia in June 2025.}

Thereafter, on 29.07.2025, the Applicant submitted another representation requesting revocation of his suspension and his posting back to JNV, Bikram, Patna, citing his genuine and continuing difficulties. The Applicant contends that although he had initially been placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, no charge-sheet was issued for more than 80 days. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 issued an order dated 05.08.2025 revoking the suspension under Rule 10(5)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. However, instead of restoring the Applicant to his original place of posting at JNV, Bikram, Patna, the Respondents directed his transfer/posting to JNV, West Nadia, West Bengal, which was the same place fixed as his headquarters during suspension.

The Applicant challenges the aforesaid part of the order dated 05.08.2025 relating to his transfer/posting to JNV, Nadia, contending that such posting is punitive, illegal, arbitrary, irrational, tainted by malice and without jurisdiction or competence. It is further contended that Rule 10(5)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 merely provides for revocation of suspension ^Bench and does not contemplate simultaneous transfer or posting as a consequence of such revocation. The Applicant also relies upon the transfer policy/directive dated 27.07.2006 issued by the competent Central Administrative Tribunal^{authority of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, which, according to him,} does not permit displacement of an employee from one place to another by way of punishment for any alleged lapse, allegation or misconduct.

The Applicant further states that, following revocation of suspension, the earlier OA No. 362 of 2025 has become substantially infructuous except in respect of the relief concerning his posting. He submitted a further representation dated 20.08.2025 seeking cancellation of the posting order and restoration to JNV, Bikram, Patna, but no decision has been taken thereon. In the meantime, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 25.08.2025 alleging misconduct, to which he submitted his reply on 02.09.2025 denying the allegations. The Applicant submits that the disciplinary proceedings are a separate issue and have no bearing upon the legality of the impugned transfer/posting order.

In these circumstances, the Applicant asserts that the impugned portion of the order dated 05.08.2025 directing his posting at JNV, West Nadia, after revocation of suspension, is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction and contrary to the transfer policy dated 27.07.2006. He therefore seeks judicial intervention for setting ^Bench aside the said portion of the order and for appropriate relief, including restoration/posting at his original place of posting, JNV, Bikram, Patna, contending that continuation of his posting at Nadia Central Administrative Tribunal^{after revocation of suspension amounts to an impermissible} punitive displacement.

A. The Respondents have denied the Applicant’s contention that his suspension and subsequent posting at JNV, Nadia, West Bengal, were punitive, irrational, incompetent or otherwise illegal. According to the Respondents, the Applicant had been functioning as SSA at JNV, Bikram, Patna, since 21.09.2022, and an inspection was conducted by a team of officers from NVS Headquarters on 19.04.2025 regarding the functioning of the Vidyalaya and duties discharged by the Applicant. On the basis of the inspection report and recommendations of the inspecting team, NVS Headquarters directed his immediate suspension vide letter dated 13.05.2025. The Respondents contend that the suspension was ordered in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and that the fixing of JNV, Nadia, as his headquarters during suspension was an administrative measure. The inspection team had also ^Bench recommended a financial audit by officers from outside the Patna Region and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{B. The Respondents further contend that the Applicant’s} representation dated 14.05.2025 did not confer any immunity upon him from administrative or disciplinary action. It is stated that the Applicant submitted the representation immediately after the suspension order and, instead of awaiting a decision thereon, filed OA No. 362 of 2025 before the Tribunal on 15.05.2025. His representation was subsequently considered and rejected on 21.05.2025 for administrative reasons. The Respondents maintain that suspension is merely a temporary withdrawal of an employee from duty pending inquiry into his conduct and does not constitute a penalty. They further allege that the Applicant did not initially comply with the suspension order in its true letter and spirit and that he had attempted to delay compliance by submitting successive representations.

C. With regard to the basis of suspension, the Respondents rely upon the inspection conducted on 19.04.2025, during which several alleged shortcomings were noticed in the Applicant’s functioning. These included failure to update the Cash Book and bank reconciliation of the Vidyalaya Navodaya Vikas Nidhi account, failure to update the Ledger Book, non-pasting of pay bills in the ^Bench pay bill register after August 2022, failure to put bills before the Principal/DDO for signature, and inability to produce vouchers and purchase bills relating to procurement of certain non-consumable Central Administrative Tribunal^{items. On the basis of these prima facie findings, the inspecting} committee recommended immediate suspension of the Applicant and initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The Respondents also allege that after reporting at JNV, Nadia, on 12.06.2025, the Applicant left the headquarters without obtaining permission from the competent authority and thereby violated the directions applicable during suspension.

D. The Respondents have specifically defended the order dated 05.08.2025 whereby the Applicant’s suspension was revoked but he was posted at JNV, Nadia, instead of being restored to JNV, Bikram, Patna. Their case is that continuation of the Applicant at JNV, Bikram, was not considered conducive from the administrative point of view in view of the findings of the inquiry committee. The Respondents rely upon the NVS Transfer Policy, 2021, notified on 28.01.2022, particularly the provision permitting transfer where continuation of an employee at a particular station is not conducive from the administrative point of view, including administrative transfer with or without disciplinary proceedings. They contend that the earlier transfer policy/circular dated 27.07.2006 relied upon by the Applicant stood superseded by the ^Bench 2021 policy and is therefore not applicable.

E. The Respondents further assert that the posting of the Applicant at JNV, Nadia, was an administrative decision taken in the larger Central Administrative Tribunal^{interest of the organization and was not intended as a punishment.} They rely upon several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including Tamilnadu Agricultural University & Anr. v. R. Agila, S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal and Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath, to contend that an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place and that courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with transfer orders unless they are shown to be mala fide, contrary to statutory provisions, or passed by an incompetent authority. According to the Respondents, administrative exigencies and organizational interest must receive primacy over the personal inconvenience of an employee, and a transfer based on prima facie administrative concerns does not require a prior detailed departmental inquiry.

F. The Respondents also state that the Applicant’s representation dated 20.08.2025 seeking cancellation of his posting at JNV, Nadia, was not acted upon in view of the contemplated disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the Applicant was subsequently served with a charge-sheet dated 25.08.2025 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, based upon the ^Bench observations of the inquiry committee and audit team. The Respondents assert that the transfer/posting order was passed by the competent authority with the approval of the competent transferring Central Administrative Tribunal^{authority and is therefore neither without jurisdiction nor vitiated} by mala fides or vengeance. On these grounds, the Respondents maintain that the impugned action is consistent with the NVS Transfer Policy, 2021 and the prevailing rules, deny all contrary averments in the OA, and ultimately pray for dismissal of the Original Application with costs.

The following issues arise for consideration:

Whether revocation of suspension under Rule 10(5)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 conferred upon the applicant an enforceable right to be restored to his pre-suspension station;

Whether the impugned posting at JNV, West Nadia is vitiated as a punitive transfer, mala fide exercise of power, incompetence, violation of a statutory provision, or patent arbitrariness; and

Whether the transfer policy relied upon by the applicant creates any enforceable right against the impugned posting.

^Bench 4.2 As regards the first question, Rule 10(5)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 deals with revocation of suspension. Revocation of suspension and determination of the place at which an employee is Central Administrative Tribunal^{thereafter required to discharge his duties are conceptually distinct} matters. Subsequent to revocation of suspension the competent authority may, subject to the applicable service rules and policy, determine his subsequent place of posting.

It is equally well settled that transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station. The scope of judicial/quasi-judicial interference is limited in such administrative decision. Interference is justified where the order is shown to be contrary to a statutory provision, passed by an incompetent authority, vitiated by mala fides, or founded upon an irrelevant/extraneous consideration so as to constitute an abuse of power.

At the same time, the mere description of an order as a “transfer” does not conclude the matter. If a transfer is imposed in substance as a punishment, or for a purpose foreign to the administrative power of transfer, the Tribunal is entitled to examine it.

Applying the above principles, the material on record does not establish that the order dated 05.08.2025 was passed as a ^Bench disciplinary penalty. The respondents have relied upon the inspection dated 19.04.2025, which, according to them, disclosed deficiencies in the applicant's functioning including Central Administrative Tribunal^{huge financial impropriety and led to recommendations for} financial audit and disciplinary action. They have further stated that, from the administrative point of view, continuation of the applicant at JNV, Bikram was not considered conducive and that his posting at Nadia was made in the larger administrative interest.

It is being observed that the Tribunal is not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the allegations noticed in the inspection report. Those allegations are the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings and have to be adjudicated independently in accordance with law. Their existence, however, is relevant for the limited purpose of examining whether the impugned posting was wholly without administrative foundation.

The fact that JNV, Nadia had earlier been fixed as the applicant's headquarters during suspension also does not, by itself, establish that his subsequent posting there was punitive. The test is the substance and purpose of the impugned order. On the material placed before us, the respondents have disclosed an administrative basis for not retaining the applicant at JNV, Bikram. The applicant has not established that the stated administrative consideration was a mere camouflage for imposing a disciplinary punishment.

^Bench 4.8 The applicant has also not established that the authority passing the impugned order lacked competence or that the posting was prohibited by any statutory provision. The respondents have Central Administrative Tribunal^{specifically asserted that the posting was made by the competent} authority in accordance with the prevailing NVS Transfer Policy, 2021 that has clearly stated that henceforth, transfer of employees of NVS will be regulated as per provisions contained in this policy making the previous transfer policy of 2006 irrelevant for the adjudication of the present O.A.

The applicant's reliance upon the instruction dated 27.07.2006 cannot, in the facts of the present case, advance his claim. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the said instruction stood superseded by the NVS Transfer Policy, 2021, notified on 28.01.2022, which permits administrative transfer where continuation of an employee at a particular station is not considered conducive from the administrative point of view, including in cases involving disciplinary proceedings. The applicant has not demonstrated from the material before us that the 2006 instruction continued to govern the field or that the 2021 Policy prohibited the impugned posting.

The subsequent issuance of the charge-sheet dated 25.08.2025 does not, by itself, retrospectively convert the posting order dated 05.08.2025 into a punishment. The disciplinary ^Bench proceedings and the administrative posting operate in distinct fields. The merits of the charges are, therefore, left entirely open and shall be considered by the disciplinary authority in accordance Central Administrative Tribunal^{with law.}

The personal difficulties pleaded by the applicant, including the illness of his wife, undoubtedly merit humane and sympathetic consideration by the competent authority. However, such circumstances do not confer a legally enforceable right to a particular place of posting. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment of administrative convenience for that of the competent authority unless the decision suffers from one of the recognised grounds of judicial review.

I have also considered the applicant's allegation that the posting is mala fide. No specific individual against whom mala fides are alleged has been impleaded or shown to have acted with an oblique motive, nor has any material been placed before us sufficient to establish malice in fact or malice in law. The allegation of punitive intent, without supporting material demonstrating that the transfer was imposed as a substitute for disciplinary punishment, cannot by itself justify interference.