Ravi Kant Pandey vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing on admission.

The instant original application has been filed with following relief:

The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant is challenging the order dated 30.06.2026 passed by the respondent no 2 through which he has been transferred from his present establishment / unit, CQA (&C) to CQA (GS), Kanpur. The applicant has further challenged the order dated 03.07.2026 issued on behalf of the respondent no 3 relieving the applicant from his permanent transfer to CQA (GS), Kanpur on administrative ground w.e.f. 03.07.2026. Applicant has contended that the transfer order was solely passed on the recommendation of JCM-III / respondent no 4, which is motivated by clear malice and stigma. The OA further alleges that the applicant has been transferred just because a complaint was made against him that his posting in the office of CQA (T&C) is affecting the CBI investigation going on against him, which is an illegal and malafide ground. Thus, by way of the instant OA, the applicant seeks quashing of the aforesaid transfer order and relieving order thereby directing the respondents to permit him to continue working at his present place of posting.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue of admission.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under respondent no 3. A complaint was made regarding the selection process through which the applicant and other similar candidates were recruited. The matter was examined behind the applicant’s back and all appointments including that of the applicant’s, were terminated. At present, the applicant and other appointed LDCs are working under the department by virtue of the interim order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No 20638 of 2025. Learned counsel further argued that on the basis of a complaint made by the complainants, a local MP at District Kanpur recommended the initiation of a CBI case to examine the correctness of the allegations of malpractice. The CBI, after a detailed deliberation, furnished its closure report dated 09.12.2021. However, the matter was remanded for further inquiry.

Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant is presently holding the post of Joint Secretary in the recognized Union, i.e., Labour Union TDEs, CQA (T&C), Kanpur. On 11.06.2026 and 13.06.2026, letters were issued by the applicant to the respondents requesting for formation of a welfare committee in the interest of employees. But instead of taking any action on the representation, the department initiated a vigilance inquiry against the officer bearers who countersigned the application and threatened the applicant. Another application on 29.06.2026 was made by the association before respondent no 3 seeking action of the respondents on certain points regarding welfare of the employees. On 30.06.2026, Central Administrative Tribunal^{the transfer order was issued against the applicant transferring him} from CQA (T&C) Kanpur to CQA (GS) Kanpur on the ground that a complaint was made regarding the applicant wherein he was labeled as “CBI accused employee”. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant obtained copy of the letter dated 09.09.2025 whereby the office of the Respondent no 1 had examined the representation dated 09.06.2025. Pursuant to the said letter, it was communicated vide letter dated 21.04.2026 to the Controller of CQA (T&C) / CQA (PP) / CQA (M) for their opinion regarding the posting out of “CBI accused” personnel from the Stores Department, Kanpur to other departments. The Secretary, Staff Side JCM – III (INTUC), Indian National Defence Workers Federation at Kanpur, having knowledge of the proposal to transfer the LDCs based on the recommendation of another staff association, strongly protested that no staff can be transferred upon the recommendation of an opponent association. The competent authority assured him, via letter dated 11.05.2026, that the transfer of the five LDCs had not yet been finalized and that a meeting with the DGQA would be initiated. However, the aforesaid association never granted an opportunity for such meeting. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant learned that the letter dated 21.04.2026 was circulated to CQ (T&C)/CQA (PP)/CQA (M), however, except for CQA (T&C), the others expressed the opinion that there was neither any ongoing enquiry nor any requirement for transferring staff from their units. The respondent no 3, out of vengeance, recommended the applicant’s transfer from CQA (T&C) Kanpur to another department, and out of five total cases only the applicant was issued the impugned transfer order. Thereafter, relieving order dated 03.07.2026 was also issued. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is a member of a recognized association and holds the post of Joint Secretary and in terms of MoD letter dated 26.10.2018, he is exempted from transfer liability. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to admit and allow the OA at this stage itself and quash the impugned orders thereby directing the respondent to allow the applicant to continue working at his present place of posting. Central Administrative Tribunal^{7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the} prayer of the applicant’s counsel and argued that the applicant has only been transferred / posted to a different unit i.e., from CQA (T&C) to CQA (GS) and both the units are in the same city of Kanpur and since the transfer has been made within the same city, no cause of action is made out to challenge the transfer / posting order and relieving order through this original application. It is further argued that the order dated 30.06.2026 clearly reveals that the transfer of the applicant has been made on administrative grounds in issuing the same, no rules or provisions have been violated and the order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Learned counsel further argued that transfer has not been imposed upon the applicant as a consequence of any complaint received against him and this particular contention of the applicant is not acceptable as the transfer has been made on administrative grounds. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant has already joined at the new place of posting. It is further argued that transfer is an incidence of service and when it is made in administrative exigency, as in the instant case, the applicant cannot claim any vested right to continue at a particular place of posting. Thus, prayer was made to dismiss the OA at this stage itself.

I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

In this matter, the applicant is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 30.06.2026 through which he has been transferred from CQA (T&C), Kanpur to CQA (GS), Kanpur. He is also aggrieved by the relieving order dated 03.07.2026 issued in this respect. It is admitted fact from the pleadings of the parties as well as from the facts on record that both the units i.e., the applicant’s current place of posting and the unit to which he has been transferred by way of the aforesaid order, are located in Kanpur itself. Thus, it cannot be assumed that the transfer would cause any feasible difficulty to the applicant. Secondly, as regards to the allegation of the applicant that his transfer has been effected consequent to the complaint received against him, no conclusive oral or documentary evidence has been brought on record to Central Administrative Tribunal^{establish this pleading. Further, the impugned order explicitly says that} the transfer has been made on administrative grounds. It is needless to reiterate that when transfer has been made in administrative grounds, as is done in the instant case, it leaves very little scope for interference by Courts and Tribunals. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant original application is not liable to be admitted. Furthermore, since it is an admitted fact that the applicant has already joined at the new place of posting, it would be meaningless to keep this original application pending. Thus, on the basis of above contemplations, the instant original application is dismissed at this stage itself.

All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.