IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22993 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.102/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SOBHA MARY ALEXANER W/O. JOSEPH GEORGE, CHIEF COMMERCIAL CLERK-III SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOTTAYAM R.S., CHATHUKULAM, PERUMPAIKADU POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O.,CHENNAI-3 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-14 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-14 4. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL M ANAGER (PS), SOUTHERN RAILWAY,HEADQUARTERS OFFICE PARK TOWN P.O.CHENNAI-3 5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (PERSONNEL), SOUTHERN RAILWAY,TRIVANDRUM DIVISION TRIVANDRUM -14 6. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE PARK TOWN P.O.,CHENNAI-3 WPC 22993/2008 7. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR BY ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R1 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 22993 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th August, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.102/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondents herein were the respondents in that O.A. The petitioner, who was a Commercial Clerk in the Southern Railways working at Kottayam under the Thiruvananthapuram Division, was facing disciplinary proceedings, involving grave misconduct. Initially, she was suspended from service. Later, she was reinstated and thereafter transferred out, by Annexure-A1 order, to Palakkad, which is in Palakkad Division. The petitioner attacked the said order before the CAT on various grounds. The main ground canvassed was the violation of Annexure- A5 Rule. It says that a Group C employee facing disciplinary proceedings shall not, normally, be transferred from one WPC 22993/2008 2 Railway/Division to another Railway/Division before the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner also contended that her seniority will be affected by the impugned transfer. The respondents resisted the application, relying on Annexure-R1 order, which provided that persons facing charges for grave misconduct, like the petitioner, can be transferred out from the parent division. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and dismissed the O.A. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged not only Ext.P5 final order of the CAT, but also Annexure-R1 order of the Railways. 2. The learned senior counsel Mr.N.N.Sugunapalan, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that Annexure-A5 is a statutory Rule. So, Annexure-R1 cannot override the same. Secondly, it is submitted that if the petitioner is transferred, her seniority will be affected. She may become junior to the junior-most in her cadre. 3. Annexure-A5 only says that normally, an employee facing disciplinary proceedings may not be transferred out to another Railway/Division. It means that the competent authority has discretion in that matter. The Railways have issued Annexure-R1 order, pointing WPC 22993/2008 3 out how that discretion should be exercised. We find that there is nothing wrong with the said order. It only gives certain guidelines for the competent authority as to how the discretion under Annexure-A5 should be exercised, while transferring employees, who are facing disciplinary action. The second ground regarding loss of seniority is, plainly, untenable. A close reading of the impugned order of the CAT would show that the said point was not canvassed before the Tribunal. Obviously, it was not canvassed, as it was untenable. An incumbent, who is transferred out, in exigencies of service, to another division, will not lose his seniority. In the result, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/