AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this case relating to transfer, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
“(a)To set aside the order dated 30.03.2026, contained in Annexure no. 1, passed by the respondent No.4, the order dated 09.07.2025, contained in Annexure No. 2, order dated 17.12.2024 contained in Annexure No. 3 passed by the respondent No. 3 in so far as it relates to the applicant, order dated 29.01.2026, contained in Annexure No. 4, passed by the respondent no. 5 and order dated 30.01.2026, contained in Annexure No. 5, passed by the respondent No. 6 and ICC report dated 07.06.2023 with to applicant’s transfer with all consequential benefits.
(b)To issue order/direction/command to the respondents to allow the applicant to continue at the place on which she is working at Barabanki, without reference to the orders, impugned in the O.A. with all benefits of service.
(c)Issue such other order/direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d)Allow the Original Application with cost against the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and grounds raised in the Application.”
The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed to the post of Track Maintainer on 27.01.2014 under the respondents. She was transferred from Barabanki to Lucknow vide order dated 17.12.2024 and relieved vide order dated 26.12.2024 against which she represented on 30.12.2024. The applicant also approached this Tribunal in OA No. 34 of 2025 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 17.01.2025, directed the respondents to decide her representation and the respondents, vide order dated 12.03.2025, decided to keep her transfer in abeyance till 31.03.2025 and relieved her on 24.04.2025.
The applicant again approached this Tribunal in OA No. 258 of 2025 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 23.05.2025, directed the respondents to decide her fresh representation to be submitted to them. The applicant’s representation dated 06.06.2025 came to be disposed of by the respondents on 09.07.2025 stating that the transfer order had been passed in compliance of the Internal Complaint Committee’s (ICC) direction dated 07.06.2023.
Aggrieved with the order dated 09.07.2025, the applicant approached this Tribunal for the third time in OA No. 540 of 2025 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 02.01.2026, modified the orders passed by the respondents allowing the applicant to be continued at Barabanki till 31.03.2026, i.e., completion of academic session of her children and directed that she would stand relieved with effect from 01.04.2026 to join at Lucknow.
The applicant represented to the respondents on 10.03.2026 against her transfer which was rejected on 31.03.2026. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
The applicant contends that she had submitted a complaint regarding sexual harassment at workplace and that the ICC found that two persons, R K Tewari and Shivendra Rai, had committed sexual harassment, but both these persons have been transferred along with the applicant to the same station, i.e., Lucknow. She also contends that instead of protection against retaliation, the ICC has issued direction for her transfer without having any authority or competence for issuing such direction.
Per contra, the respondents aver that the charge of sexual harassment was not found proved by the ICC and that the ICC recommended the transfer of R K Tewari and Shivendra Rai as well as the applicant in the interest of safety and peace along with disposal of the charge sheet dated 18.10.2022 against the applicant.
We have heard both the parties.
While disposing of OA No. 540 of 2025 on 02.01.2026, this Tribunal (Single Bench) had made the following observations and order:
“6.3A perusal of the report dated 07.06.2023 of the Internal Complaints Committee reveals that the Committee, while recording that the charge of sexual harassment was not proved, also noted that it appeared that the applicant was being harassed by R K Tiwari and Shivendra Rai who had been recommended for transfer. It is noted that the Committee also recommended the applicant’s transfer in the interest of maintenance of safety and peace as well as the withdrawal of the charge sheet dated 18.10.2022 against the applicant. It is observed that the report dated 07.06.2023 of the Internal Complaints Committee has not been challenged by the applicant in the present OA.
6.4Considering the fact that the impugned orders have been issued by the respondents based on the report dated 07.06.2023 of the Internal Complaints Committee which is not under challenge, no infirmity is observed in issuance of the impugned orders. However, considering the fact that only a few months are left in completion of the academic session 2025-26 of the applicant’s children and that the respondents had earlier decided not to transfer the applicant mid-session during 2024-25 vide their order dated 12.03.2025 in light of the applicant’s own request made vide her representation dated 30.12.2024, it would be in the interest of justice to effect the transfer order in respect of the applicant on completion of the current academic session 2025-26 of her children, i.e., after 31.03.2026.
7.1In view of the facts and circumstances above, the impugned orders dated 17.12.2024, 12.03.2025, 24.04.2025 and 09.07.2025 are modified in their operation to the extent that the applicant shall be allowed to continue at her present place of posting at Barabanki till 31.03.2026, i.e., till completion of her children’s academic session 2025-26, and she shall stand relieved with effect from 01.04.2026 to join at Lucknow.
7.2This OA is disposed of in above terms.”
(emphasis supplied)
It is noted that in this OA, the applicant has challenged the report of ICC dated 07.06.2023 in regard to her transfer. On going through the ICC’s report, it is noted that the applicant had submitted written statements of four witnesses in support of her complaint. Out of these four witnesses, two witnesses deposed before the ICC that their signatures had been obtained on blank paper by the applicant saying that the matter was relating to the charge sheet dated 18.10.2022 against her. One witness testified that the applicant told him that R K Tewari and Shivendra Rai were harassing her. The fourth witness (Driver) deposed that the applicant’s husband had obtained his signature threatening him that he would also be implicated in the case if he did not sign. The ICC observed that the witnesses got agitated when they came to know during cross examination that the papers signed by them were used by the applicant to describe the alleged sexual harassment without their knowledge. In view of these considerations and in the interest and security and peace, the ICC recommended the applicant’s transfer from Barabanki to Lucknow. While the ICC’s recommendation in regard to the applicant’s transfer from Barabanki to Lucknow cannot be said to be without any basis, what concerns us is that the respondents have transferred both R K Tewari and Shivendra Rai also to Lucknow. It is noted that while the ICC recommended the applicant’s transfer from Barabanki to Lucknow, it only recommended the transfer of R K Tewari and Shivendra Rai from Barabanki and did not indicate the place they should be posted to. Considering the sensitive background of the matter as revealed in the ICC’s report dated 07.06.2023, it is evident that the applicant should not have been posted at the same place where R K Tewari and Shivendra Rai are posted. We do not think it was appropriate on part of the respondents to transfer the applicant as well R K Tewari and Shivendra Rai at the same place, i.e., Lucknow. In the given circumstances, the judgment and order dated 02.01.2026 of this Tribunal in OA No. 540 of 2025 is also required to be modified, in our opinion.
In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 is quashed and set aside to the extent it has the effect of enforcing the applicant’s transfer from Barabanki to Lucknow.
This OA is disposed of in above terms.
Associated MAs also stand disposed of.
Parties shall bear their own costs.