Ramesh Chandra Maharana vs Union Of India & Ors.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Pithily stated that the applicant is working as Dy. Superintendent of Salt, Huma in the District of Ganjam. Vide Order C.No.22016[1]Admn/2011/Vol.II/E-221784/5446-5457 dated 03.12.2025, he was transferred to Vedaranyam Salt Factory, Chennai Circle, Shastri Bhawan, Nungambakkam. He submitted representation against such transfer on 03.12.2025. The same was rejected vide communication dated 17.12.2025. Hence, being aggrieved, he has filed this OA seeking to quash the order dated 03.12.2025 and order of rejection of his representation dated 17.12.2025, among other grounds, on the ground that the said impugned orders are out of malice, malicious and mala fide exercise of power and de hors the DoP&T’s OM and law prohibiting transfer as far as practicable to the caregiver of disabled child and other dependent members, in the instant case he is the caregiver of his 91% disabled daughter and, that, the order of transfer was made in gross violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S.R.Subramanian & Ors Vs UOI & Ors, WP(C) No. 82/2011 dated 21.10.2013, and the OM issued by the DoP&T mandating all department of the Govt. of India that transfer of employee from place to other must be made as per the recommendations of the Transfer and Placement Committee whereas his transfer was made without any such recommendation by any such Committee.

Respondents filed their counter stating inter alia that admittedly no disciplinary or vigilance case is pending against the applicant. The applicant while functioning as Dy. Superintendent to Salt at Huma Circle Office committed serious lapses in discharge of his duties; in particular, he failed to prepare the Muster Roll Registers of watch and ward personnel engaged at Huma Circle, which resulted non-payment of wages for an extended period from 24.05.2025 to 19.08.2025 and subsequent months. The dereliction, inaction and negligence of his duty, led to labour disputes and legal proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), BBSR. He undertook official tours, left headquarters and availed compensatory off without approval of the authority concerned coupled with dereliction of official duties. He shown non-cooperation with superior authority and subordinate staff. He was issued show cause notice dated 31.10.2025 on the complaint received for non-cooperation with superior and subordinate staff so also from public but he did not furnish any satisfactory reply. He refused to attend the court proceedings and other works despite clear cut instruction from the Regional Office, Chennai on several occasions. Insofar as the allegation that the transfer was effected without recommendation of the Transfer and placement Committee thereby respondents violated the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S.R.Subramanian (supra) and DoP&T OM, it is the case of the respondents that the said submission is misplaced because the decision primarily dealt with the civil service reforms and protection of officers from political interference. It does not mandates that every transfer in every cadre much necessary be rooted through a placement Committee. The applicant belongs to the Salt Commissioner’s organization, which functions on its own administrative hierarchy and procedures and, therefore, the transfer of the applicant was made in public interest/administrative exigency by the competent authority strictly within its administrative powers. Insofar as the stand of the applicant that he being the caregiver of 91% disabled daughter is concerned, it is stated that the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 and the OM issued by the DoP&T are matters on record but the applicant made misinterpretation of the provisions made therein. As per the DoP&T OM, an employee, who is a caregiver of a dependent person with benchmark disability may be exempted from routine transfer or rotational transfer subject to administrative constraints, which does not confer any absolute right on employee to remain posted at a particular station indefinitely. In the case in hand, the transfer of the applicant was not a routine or rotational transfer but was necessitated on compelling administrative exigencies and public interest. Accordingly, respondents have stated that the OA being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed in limine.

Heard parties. Perused the records and the decisions relied on.

Mr. Jyoti Ranjan, Behera, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the applicant is much obliged on the admission made by the respondents that as per the DoP&T OM, the applicant being a caregiver of his 91% disabled daughter is excluded from routine/rotational transfer as far as practicable but it is stated that since transfer of applicant is not a routine transfer but for his inefficiency and dereliction to duty, judicial interference is excluded. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on this decision of this Bench in OA No. 369 of 2022 dated 18.09.2026 [Hara Prasad Pattanaik vs UOI and Others] to state that since the transfer is made in violation of the DoP&T OM so also Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 that to a faraway place, i.e. Chennai, by which the applicant would be deprived of taking proper care of his 91% daughter and his daughter will also be deprived of getting proper care, which would be in violation of the Act. Hence, the order of transfer being a nullity is liable to be quashed.

Mr. Behera has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs Union Of India & Ors, AIR 2009 SC 1399, to state that it is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed on allegation or in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. It is stated that following the principles laid down in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra), the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Jugal Krishna Paul vs Union of India and others in W.P.C.T. No. 111 of 2022 dated 7.11.2024, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of P.K.Karunakaran vs Union of India and Others in W.P No. 12812 of 2013 dated 04.11.2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) and in the case of Amol Radhakrushna Thakare vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr, 2018 (6) ALL MR 411, have quashed the orders of transfer which were made under the nomenclature or in the garb of public/administrative interest/exigency but in actuality by way of punishment, without giving any opportunity. It is stated that the applicant is grateful for the fair submission of the Respondents that the transfer of the applicant, in reality, is effected/necessitated due to his inefficiency and dereliction to duty, without giving him any opportunity but in the garb of public/administrative interest/exigency, thus, by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) and Hon'ble High Courts of Kolkata, Bombay and Madras in the cases of Jugal Krishna Paul (supra) P.K.Karunakaran (supra) & Amol Radhakrushna Thakare (supra) respectively, the present order of transfer of applicant so also order of rejection of his representation are liable to be quashed.

Mr. Behera has also denied the allegations made in so far applicant’s inefficiency and dereliction of duty in absence of any such corroborative evidence being filed by the respondents. It is submitted that the Respondents transferred the applicant on allegation made by some miscreant, who wanted to pollute the administration in some way or the other by alleging his inefficiency and dereliction, by falsely quoting that the order of transfer is in administrative interest. This shows that exercise of power of transfer in respect of applicant is not free from bias and bona fide. Hence, the order of transfer, being not in bona fade exercise of power rather it is actuated with bias and malafide exercise of power, the same is liable to be quashed.

In so far as the stand taken by the Respondents relating to effecting transfer without any recommendation of the Transfer and Placement Committee (TPC) concerned, according to learned counsel for the applicant since Respondents’ organization is purely a Government of India entity and the order of DoP&T OM has fullest application, transfer made without any such recommendation is a nullity in the eyes of law. Accordingly, he has prayed for the relief claimed in this OA.

On the other hand, Mr. R.S.Pattnaik, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents, in course of hearing, besides highlighting the points noted in their counter, has submitted that transfer is an incident of service and who should be transferred where and at what point of time is purely within the domain of the authorities manning the department. Since the transfer of applicant is made in public/administrative interest/exigency, merely pointing out the reasons of such administrative interest, no judicial interference is necessitated especially when the transfer shall not jeopardize any service interest such as depletion of salary or seniority etc. Accordingly, Respondents’ counsel has prayed that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

It is noteworthy that the Nodal Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training vide OM No. 11013/10/2013-Estt.A dated 9^th January, 2014, in compliance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, issued instruction to all Departments of the Government of India that there should be a body akin to the CSB in each cadre to consider the transfer and posting of all Groups A, B and C officers. The committee would be recommendatory body. Final decision would rest with the competent authority as per rules, in the matter of transfer and posting. In this case, counter has been filed on behalf of all the Respondents, which includes the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Government of India, New Delhi. The Respondents’ organization is purely Government of India entity and its employees are holder of Civil Post. All Son of the Soil are obliged to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Respondents’ department cannot deny to follow the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in one pretext or the other. Similarly, they are also under obligation to strictly follow and act on the OM issued by the DoP&T. In the said circumstances, we are shocked to note the submissions taken by the Respondents in their counter that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is primarily dealt with the civil service reforms and protection of officers from political interference. It does not mandate that every transfer in every cadre much necessary be rooted through a Placement Committee. The applicant belongs to the Salt Commissioner’s organization, which functions on its own administrative hierarchy and procedures and, therefore, the transfer of the applicant was made in public interest/administrative exigency by the competent authority strictly within its administrative powers. According to us, since the present order of transfer has not admittedly been done with the recommendation of any such Transfer and Placement Committee (TPC), the same is bound to fall flat being passed in gross violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and DoP&T OM referred to above.

Insofar as exemption of caregiver is concerned, it may be noted that the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of this Bench in the case of Hara Prasad Pattnaik (supra) wherein this Bench quashed the order of transfer being passed in gross violation of the PwBD Act, 2016 and DoP&T OM, referred to above. The said decision is taken to record.

From the order dated 17.12.2025 (A/8) rejecting the representation of the applicant, which he had submitted against his order of transfer dated 03.12.2025 (A/5) so also from the counter, the respondents have fairly admitted that present transfer is made due to dereliction to duty and applicant’s inefficiency without ordering due process of law/complying with the basic requirement of principles of natural justice. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) is much relevant wherein the Hon’ble

Taking into consideration all the facts and law narrated and concluded as above, the present order of transfer dated 17.12.2025 so also the order rejecting his representation dated 03.12.2025 are hereby annulled/quashed. The OA is accordingly allowed. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.