M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR W.P.§Sl No.185l2009 DB: HON’BLE SHR! JU$TICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & .HON’BLE w SHR! JUST!CE T.P. SHARMA WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Aegearnce: Shri Ratan Pusty, counsel‘to‘r the petitioner. Shri J.A. Lohani, Counsel for respondent No.1 on advance copy. ME (1 5.1 .2009) Following order of the Court is passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Heard on admission. The petitioner, who was working on the post of Peon, was transferred from Raipur to Bhatapara vide order dated 14.12.2007. He submitted a representation to the concerned authority to retain him till .r w T r I i i i l l; —\\ r. l l W Agplicant Bhagwat Prasad Dubey, Son of K. Dubey, aged about 38 years, Peon, Department of Post, Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur (C.G.), Clo B.L. Sandilya, Santoshi Niwas, Dhobipara, Brahmanpara Chowk, Raipur (0G,) RESPONDENTS Versus Non-agglicants Union of India, Through its Secretary, Miaistry of Communication, Department of Posts, Centrai Secetariat, North Block, New Delhi 2 The Chief Post Master General, Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Superintendent of Posts, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) 4 Dept. Divisional Inspector, (Post), Raipur Sub Division, Raipur (C.G.) 5 The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, through 2 W.P,(S) No.185/2oo9 the end of Current Academic Session and immediately thereafter, he preferred O.A. Not8/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the said transfer order. The said original application was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2008 directing the respondent to consider the above representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned speaking order. On this direction, an order dated 06.02.2008 was passed and the petitioner was directed to be attached in a Post Office within Raipur city till the completion of Current Academic Session i.e. 30‘“ April 2008. This order dated 06.02.2008 was again challenged in O.A. No.274/2008. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the ‘order dated 06.02.2008 contains certain insinuations against the petitioner; therefore, the same appears to be malafide and deserves to be set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal negatived the above contentions and dismissed the said original application taking a view that there were some narration of facts in the order, which cannot be treated as punitive and by that alone, the order of transfer cannot be set aside, because, no specific allegation of malice etc was either made or established by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the insinuations against the petitioner in the order dated 06.02.2008 itself constitutes malatide, therefore, the Tribunal erred in law in not setting aside the aforesaid order. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. The order dated 06.02.2008. contains that the petitioner was proceeded against unde/Ruléii‘S bf the CCS (CCA) Ruies 1965 and punished vide order dated 09.10.2007 for deliberate disobedience of orders of his higher authorities and again, when he absented himself ’from duty w.e.f. 01.11.2007 to 08.11.2007 unauthorizedly, this period has been ordered to be treated as dies non. It was also observed in the order that if any hardship is caused to the petitioner due to his transfer, it is by dint of his own acts. A perusal of the entire order dated 06.02.2008 shows that these are the narrations of facts, which have not been said to be factually incorrect and the Tribunal has rightly taken a View that these do not , t mini 3 W.P.(S) No. 1‘8 5/2009 \ constitute an element of malafude so as to interfere with an order of transfer of the petitioner from one place to another in the same District. Transfer is an incidence of service. Nobody working on a transferabie post can claim for his posting at a particular place of his own choice. lt is the domain of the employer to see as to who should be posted where for better services and smooth functioning of the Department. Unless the order of transfer is established to be an outcome of malafides or extraneous considerations or is established to be an order against any statutory Rule or Act, the Courts and Tribunal are normally not required to interfere with the transfer orders in a routine manner. ln the present case, the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Bhatapara and when he filed a representation and first Original Application i.e. 08/2008, it was ordered that his representation shall be decided by the speaking order. it appears that for the aforesaid reasons, the representation was disposed of by giving all these details in the order dated 06.02.2008 and ultimately, the petitioner was allowed to continue at Raipur till the completion of Current Academic Session i.e. 30‘“ April 2008, which was the ultimate prayer made by him in the representation. ln the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petition has no merit. The same deserves to be and is shyn accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/— /V " ~ Sunil Kumar Sinhaf T.P Shanna Judge s ‘ Judge