IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 11772 2008 BETWEEN: Syed Bajam, S/o. Patcha Hussain, Dy. SS/MRGA, R/o. Rly. Qtrs. No.14/C, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ... PETITIONER AND South Central Railway, Rep. by its Chief Personnel Officer, 4th Floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and 3 others. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for records and quash the order in O.A.No.104/2008 dated 28.04.2008 on the file of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjust consequently set aside the transfer order of the respondent dated 12.02.2008/30.08.2007 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G. RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR. P. BHASKAR The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Petitioner herein has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.104 of 2008 dated 28.04.2008 dismissing his OA. 2. The aforesaid OA came to be filed by the petitioner in the following circumstances: (a) While working as Deputy Station Superintendent in Miryalaguda Railway Station, a decoy check was conducted by the Vigilance branch on 17.05.2007 and found that the petitioner demanded and collected Rs.3/- extra over and above the actual fare and after check, the petitioner was suspended next day. Later on 25.05.2007 the suspension was revoked with effect from 25.04.2007 and on 21.06.2007 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner framing two charges. The enquiry relating to the said charges is pending after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer on 29.08.2007. Thereafter, on 30.08.2007, an order of transfer was passed, which is impugned in the OA. The said order states as follows: “Sri Syed Bajan. Dy.SS/NRGA in scale Rs.5500-9000 RS(RP) is transferred to NED Division along with the post on his present pay and scale on administrative grounds to take immediate effect. The above employee may be relieved immediately duly revoking his suspension. He should be retained on the Division to which he has been transferred till the DAR action is completed and undergoes the penalty, if any, imposed. He is eligible for all benefits on transfer account. He should vacate Railway Quarters if any under occupation. Otherwise damage rent will be recovered.” (b) Questioning the aforesaid transfer as a measure of punishment, the petitioner approached the tribunal earlier by O.A.No.628 of 2007, which was disposed of at the admission stage permitting the petitioner to make a representation within three days and the respondents were directed to consider and dispose of the same within 15 days thereafter and in the interregnum status quo was directed to be maintained. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 08.09.2007 and the said representation was rejected by a reasoned order dated 12.02.2008. Questioning the same the petitioner has filed the present OA challenging the order of transfer as well rejection of his representation. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 4. The aforesaid transfer is intra-divisional transfer and the petitioner is transferred to Nanded Division, which according to the petitioner is punitive. He also states that he is facing disciplinary enquiry and it will be very difficult for him to attend to the said enquiry from a distance of 1000 KMs where he is now transferred. 5. The respondents herein defended that said orders by filing a counter affidavit before the tribunal contending that, no doubt, departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner but the transfer as such is purely on administrative ground. 6. The petitioner places reliance on the Railway Board Letter No. E (D&A) 65 RG 6-6 dated 25.03.1967, which states as follows: “The Non-gazetted railway staff against whom a disciplinary case is pending or is about to start, should not normally be transferred from one Railway/division to another Railway/division till after the finalization of departmental/criminal proceedings, irrespective of whether the charges merit imposition of a major or a minor penalty.” 7. The respondents, on the contrary, have justified their action on the basis of the latest Serial Circular No.308/98 dated 04.12.1998 and Serial Circular No.66/1999 dated 10.03.1999 and also Estt. Serial Circular No.30/86 dated 17.03.1986. 8. The tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances of the case in detail and has noticed that the impugned order of transfer itself says that the employee may be relieved immediately duly revoking his suspension and he should be retained on the division till the DAR action is completed and undergoes the penalty, if any, imposed. The aforesaid clearly shows that while the petitioner’s suspension was revoked and he was thereafter transferred along with the post to the place of transfer. The transfer, therefore, is a consequence upon revocation of his suspension and is purely on administrative ground. The circulars on which the respondents placed reliance are the latest circulars on the subject, as such, the tribunal rightly rejected the circular on which the petitioner had placed reliance. 9. During the hearing of this matter, it was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order of transfer is not passed by the authority competent therefor. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us a copy of the proceeding which shows that Chief Passenger Traffic Manager (CPTM) has passed the order of transfer. Learned counsel has also placed before us the nature of power exercised by various authorities and so far as intra-divisional transfers are concerned full powers are vested with Principal Heads of Departments and Heads of Departments. CPTM being the Principal Head of the Department the order of transfer is clearly within his jurisdiction and cannot be faulted on that ground. The said contention, therefore, is rejected. 10. We are unable to discern any irregularity or infirmity in the consideration of the case of the petitioner by the respondents. The disciplinary case though is pending against the petitioner, the transfer in question is purely on administrative ground. In fact, the tribunal while dismissing the OA has given a liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation after complying with the orders of transfer on the ground of hardship as alleged by the petitioner. However, the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained interim stay of the impugned order of the tribunal. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 15, 2009 DSK