The Union Of India & Ors. vs Mukesh Kumar

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

Date : 18-08-2026 The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.04.2026, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “learned CAT”) in OA/050/000852 of 2025 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the sole respondent has been allowed and the order of his transfer dated 14.11.2025 as well as the relieving order dated 18.11.2025 have been quashed and set aside with a further direction to the petitioners herein to take necessary consequential steps.

The brief facts of the case are that the sole respondent was initially appointed on 21.04.2010 in the West Central Railway, Jabalpur Division against the post of Junior Engineer (loco). The sole respondent, while working in the West Central Railway had come to Eastern Railway, Malda Division on mutual exchange transfer basis in the month of September, 2013 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Section Engineer/Senior Section Engineer in the Pay Band-2, Grade Pay Rs.4600/- in the month of October, 2017. The respondent was subsequently placed in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- in the month of December, 2022. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), Eastern Railway, Malda Division, Malda, i.e. the respondent no.4 had issued an order dt. 20.07.2024 whereby the applicant was made In-charge of Crew Booking Lobby, Malda in addition to his own duty as Senior Section Engineer (L)/IC, Malda. The sole respondent was then transferred to Sahibganj vide order dated 07.04.2025, where he had joined subsequently.

It appears that upon a complaint made, one Shri Neeraj Kumar, Assistant Mechanical Engineer/Power Malda had come for inspection of Running Room on 28.10.2025, whereafter he had made certain complaints to the respondent no.4 leading to the respondent being put under suspension on 31.10.2025 but the same was revoked on 03.11.2025. The respondent no.4 had then served a charge-sheet dt. 07.11.2025 upon the sole respondent to which the sole respondent had submitted his reply on 14.11.2025, however the sole respondent was served with an order dated 14.11.2025 whereby he was transferred from Malda Division to Sealdah Division and then the petitioner no.5 had issued the release order dated 18.11.2025.

The sole respondent had then filed the connected original application bearing OA/050/000852 of 2025 inter alia praying therein for quashing the order of transfer dated 14.11.2025 as also his relieving order dated 18.11.2025 apart from issuing directions upon the petitioners herein to allow the sole respondent to work at Sahibganj (Malda Division).

The sole respondent had contended before the learned CAT that clause 6.1 (i) of the Master Circular pertaining to transfer of non-gazetted employees’ mandates that the railway employees can be transferred out of their existing post/seat or station, as the case may be, after every four years. However, in the present case, admittedly the respondent was transferred from Malda to Sahibganj on 07.04.2025 and then again, he has been transferred by an order dated 14.11.2025 from Malda Division to Sealdah Division. It was also contended that inter-divisional transfer/inter-zonal transfer can be carried out in serious cases as has been mentioned in clause 6.3.3 of the Master Circular including in a case when ticket checking staff is suspected to be indulging in malpractices, as a measure of campaign against rampant social evil. However, in the present case, the allegation levelled in the charge memo against the sole respondent is that of misbehaving with an individual person and causing tampering/theft with government property although no FIR has been lodged against the sole respondent, hence the alleged act which forms part of the charge memo pertaining to the sole respondent does not come under the ambit of social evil.

The sole respondent had also contended before the learned CAT that as per clause 14 (a) of the Master Circular No.67 dated 23.12.2019 (of the Railway Board), the Ministry of Railway has decided that non-gazetted staff against whom a disciplinary/ criminal case is pending or is about to start, should not normally be transferred from one Railway Division to another Railway Division till the finalization of the disciplinary proceedings irrespective as to whether the charges merit imposition of a major or minor penalty. Yet another issue raised by the respondent before the Ld. CAT is that according to clause 13 of the Master Circular, the competent authority for transfer of non-gazetted railway employee is General Manager or the President whereas in the present case, his transfer order has been passed by the Assistant Personal Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda and though it has been mentioned that the approval of the competent authority has been taken, however no proof has been put forth regarding such approval.

The petitioners herein had also filed written statement before the learned CAT inter alia stating therein that at the relevant time, the sole respondent was working as In-charge, Running Room, Sahibganj and Crew Booking Lobby, Sahibganj at Malda Division. It has been stated that Running Room is a dedicated rest facility for train crew members at outstation headquarters which provides essential amenities such as comfortable beds, hygienic washrooms, nutritious food and recreational facilities to ensure mandatory rest between long duty shifts. These facilities play a crucial role in ensuring the safety of train operations by reducing fatigue and improving alertness. As far as Sahibganj Running Room is concerned, the same is situated at the midpoint of Malda Division and the same plays a vital role in train operations, as approximately 60 crew members take rest there daily. It has been stated that on 28.10.2025, an inspection was conducted at around 22:00 hours during the course whereof the sole respondent did not cooperate and in fact he obstructed the inspection and prevented the discharge of official duties as also used abusive language and exhibited insubordination. In fact, upon a request being made for making available CCTV footage of the reception area of Sahibganj Running Room for the period from 22:15 hours to 23:00 hours of 28.10.2025, no action was taken and the CCTV footage was not provided as also when subsequently the DVR was inspected by the service engineer, it was found that the hard disk had been “uninitialized” and no footage of any date was available in the DVR, thus the same had been tampered. It is also stated that the order of transfer dated 14.11.2025 is a routine administrative transfer issued in the interest of administration, hence is legal and in compliance of the orders and guidelines of the Railway Board.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that transfer is an incident of service and the respondent has no vested right to remain posted under the Malda Division. It is also submitted that the transfer of the sole respondent was directed vide order dt. 14.11.2025 on account of administrative exigencies, in public interest and to protect the integrity of a running room installation. As far as clause 6.1 (i) of the Master Circular is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same prescribes ordinary tenure norms for sensitive posts, however the same does not prohibit any premature transfer. As regards the order of transfer being issued by Assistant Personal Officer, it is submitted that the transfer order itself records that the same was issued with the approval of the competent authority and the fact is that the proposal for transfer was duly considered by the placement committee comprising of three officers which had then recommended for transfer of the sole respondent and then the approval of the Divisional Railway Manager, who is the competent authority, was obtained before issuance of the transfer order.

We have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials on record. We have put a specific query to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to how the sole respondent has been transferred though a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him by issuance of memo of charge-sheet dated 07.11.2025, contrary to the provisions contained in Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 under the head “Orders of Railway Administration on Part-I” with reference to clause 14 (a) of the Master Circular No.67 dated 23.12.2019 (Railway Board) to the effect that when the conduct of a railway employee is under investigation and if he is transferred from one division to another division, it makes the finalization of disciplinary proceedings difficult, hence the Ministry of Railways has decided that non-gazetted staff against whom disciplinary case is pending or about to start should not normally be transferred from one railway division to another railway division till finalization of the disciplinary proceeding, to which the Ld. counsel for the petitioners has got no answer.

Yet another query has been put by us to the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that as per clause 6.1 (i) of the Master Circular, issued by the Ministry of Railway (Railway Board) on 17.08.2023, containing guidelines with regard to transfer of non-gazette employees, the railway employees holding sensitive posts, including those who frequently come in contact with public or/and contractors/ suppliers, are required to be transferred out of their existing post/seat or station, as the case may be, after every four years but as far as the sole respondent is concerned, his previous transfer was as recent as on 07.04.2025, thus how he has been transferred on 14.11.2025, to which also the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to give any satisfactory reply.

Lastly, we have put another query to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to the effect that as per clause 13 of the aforesaid Master Circular dated 17.08.2023, the power to transfer a non-gazetted railway employee vests with the General Manager or a lower authority to whom the power has been re-delegated, however in the present case, the sole respondent has been transferred by the Assistant Personal Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda & neither any approval granted by the General Manager for transfer of the sole respondent has been brought on record nor any chit of paper showing that the General Manager has re-delegated the power to a lower authority has also been shown to which also the learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that no order of re-delegation of the authority of power of transfer vested in the General Manager is on record.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to furnish any satisfactory reply to the aforesaid three issues raised by this Court and put to him, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs and for the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.04.2026, passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in OA/050/000852 of 2025, hence the present writ petition stands dismissed being bereft of any merit.