IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4902 of 2009 B.S.Chaturvedi s/o Late R.B. Choubey, Travelling Ticket Inspector, East Central Railway, Rajendra Nagar, Patna ……….. Petitioner with CWJC. No.4909 of 2009 Arun Kumar s/o Sri Bindeshwar Mahto, Head Travelling Ticket Examiner, East Central Railway, Rajendra Nagar, Patna ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur 2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hazipur 3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur 4. The Senior Deputy General Manaager (Vigilance), East Central Railway, Hazipur 5. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur 6. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Khagaul, Danapur ….Respondents (in both the cases) ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. M.P.Dixit, Advocate For the Railways: Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate 3 05/08/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases as well as learned counsel appearing for the railways. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has dismissed the original applications filed by the petitioners against their transfer from 2 Danapur Division to Sonepur Division for administrative reasons. It has been submitted that the transfers are apparently on account of facts communicated by the Vigilance Department and views expressed by it. It has further been submitted that as per the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding no inter-divisional transfer should have been made. We have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal dealing with the aforesaid submissions and also the relevant rules. At the present stage, the Tribunal has rightly held that the transfer orders have been passed by the competent authority and the fact that it is on the basis of communication of relevant facts made by the Vigilance Wing of the Railways will not make the transfer order passed on administrative ground invalid. In our view, had the administrative transfer been without any reasons, the same could have been assailed but now apparently there are prima facie good 3 reasons for passing order of transfer on administrative grounds. Further, we find that the rules do not prohibit inter-divisional transfer and in paragraph – 7, the Tribunal has considered this aspect in the light of the recent policy decision of the railways. We find no good reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Neyaz/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)