AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
“8.1.That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order No. 94/2026 dated 25.08.2026 of transfer and release of the applicant.
8.2.That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents no. 2 to allow the posting of applicant in the office of the Chief Commissioner (CCO), CGST & Customs, Guwahati till completion of his fixed tenure in terms of the paragraph no. 4 of the “Transfer/placement Guidelines 2023” of Group ‘B’ and ‘©’ officer of CGST & Customs, Guwahati Zone.
8.3.Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”
The brief of the case as submitted by Sri S. Nath, learned counsel for the applicant are that, applicant who is an Executive Assistant (Group ‘B’ Non Gazetted) is aggrieved with the impugned Order No. 94/2026 dated 25.08.2026 (Annexure- A1), whereby he has been transferred and released from the Chief Commissioner Office, Guwahati to CGST Dimapur, (a Hard Station) as a measure of punishment just after 3 (three) months of joining of the applicant in the office of Chief Commissioner, Guwahati Zone. 3. According to the applicant, as per para 4 of the transfer policy 2023, his fixed tenure is of 6 years whereas he has been transferred just after three months in Guwahati. As such, the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 has been issued in violation paragraph no. 4 of the “Transfer/placement Guidelines 2023” of Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ officer of CGST & Customs, Guwahati Zone dated 14.03.2003 issued by the Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Guwahati zone as well as instructions issued under letter dated 06.05.2026 for strict adherence of transfer policy.
He further submits that the impugned Order No. 94/2026 dated 25.08.2026 has been issued as measure of penalty upon the applicant that too just after 3 (three) months of joining of the applicant from Hard Station, Itanagar to the CCO, Guwahati whereas his fixed tenure is 6 years at Station Guwahati and has been issued without providing any opportunity to submit an explanation/reply to the memorandum dated 25.08.2026, that too, on the basis of wrong analysis of duty allotted to the applicant with regard to the Inter Commissionerate (Zonal) Transfer and wrong appreciation of the e-office records, the necessary file notes (Note #48) and communications, as such, the applicant has been seriously prejudiced in violation of principle of natural justice. As such, the impugned Order No. 94/2026 dated 25.08.2026 is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is a settled law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs Union of India (2009) 2 SCC 592 wherein it has been held that “when an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same_is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal”. Also in Poonam Verma Vs Delhi Development Authority reported in (2007) 13 SCC 154, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed the view that though the transfer guidelines are advisory in nature, however, same can be judicially reviewed when deviation of such transfer policy involves arbitrariness or discrimination.
Sri V. K. Bhatra, learned Sr. CGSC objected to the prayer and submits that applicant he should first joined the place of transfer and thereafter he can avail available remedies instead he straightaway approached the Court. In this connection, he has relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos 280/2003 in the case of S.C Saxena vs UOI & Ors wherein it was held that
“In the first place, a Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed.”
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the applicant has already been relieved from Guwahati Office however, presently, it would suffice the purpose of the applicant if the Respondent be directed to consider his representation dated 27.08.2026 treating this O.A as part of his representation and dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time and till such time he may be protected.
In view of the above, without entering into the merits of the matter, we dispose of this O.A with a direction upon the Respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the applicant by treating this O.A as part of his representation dated 27.08.2026 keeping in mind the transfer policy and that the applicant has only completed 03 months in Guwahati after he was posted in Itanagar which is also a hard station and in the light of the judgements as cited above by the applicant, and communicate his decision by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Till such time, let no coercive action be taken against the applicant.
Applicant is directed to serve copy of the O.A along with copy of this order to the Respondents within a week.
Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.