IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19455 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, Distt.- Vaishali (Bihar). 2. The General Manager (Personal), East Central Railway, Hazipur, Distt- Vaishali (Bihar). 3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur, Distt- Vaishali (Bihar). 4. The Senior Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), East Central Railway, Hazipur, Distt- Vaishali (Bihar). 5. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, P.O. Khagaul, Distt- Patna (Bihar) 6. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, P. O. Khagaul, Distt- Patna (Bihar) 7. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur, P. O.- Khagaul, Distt- Patna (Bihar) …. Petitioners. Versus 1. AWADH KISHORE SHARMA s/o Kaushal Kishore Sharma, Chief Goods Clerk, East Central Railway, Mokama (Bihar). 2. Gajendra Prasad, s/o Late Mahendra Prasad, Chief Supervisor (Parcel) East Central Railway, Patna (Bihar). ……. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. M. P. Dixit, Adv. ----------- 5. 14.03.2011 The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 308 of 2010 wherein the respondent herein has chosen to question the transfer order dated 28.4.2010 passed on administrative grounds. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that a vigilance check was conducted and on the basis of which the transfer order has been passed 2 on 25.3.2009 which was subsequently cancelled on 11.3.2010. O. A. was filed before the Tribunal against the transfer order dated 25.3.2009 and after its subsequent cancellation, O.A. was dismissed as infructuous. Subsequently, the transfer order had been revived by the appellants on 28.4.2010 and the same became the subject matter of a fresh O. A. No. 308 of 2010 wherein it was urged that the Appellants-railway department and its authorities had no power whatsoever to review the order passed earlier i.e. the cancellation of transfer order. The Tribunal having heard learned counsel for the parties has allowed the O. A. by recording that the transfer made on administrative ground was unsustainable as neither in the order nor in the written statement, the specific reason for transfer had been spelt out. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department of Railways has contended that the railways was not bound to assign the specific reasons for such order of transfer made under administrative exigency and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court the 3 reasons could also not be supplemented in the written statement. Per contra, counsel for the respondent contended that railway can not set aside the earlier order of cancellation dated 11.3.2010 without giving any specific reasons. In our view, by now it is well settled that concerned authority need not disclose the specific reason in the transfer order. Moreover when the transfer of Respondents applicants had been made by clearly mentioning in the order itself that the same was based on administrative ground nothing more was required to be stated therein. We are therefore not satisfied with the reasonings assigned by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in the impugned order that specific reasons should have been mentioned in the transfer order. Transfer of a government servant is a normal feature and mere incident of public service as was held by Apex Court in the case of B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1987 SC 287. A challenge 4 to an order of transfer can be sustained only on the ground of infraction of statutory Rules or on the ground of mala fide. In the present case, however neither of the two grounds was pressed into action by the Tribunal while setting aside the impugned order of transfer. That being so, the impugned order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 308 of 2010 is set aside and O.A. No. 308 of 2010 is dismissed. In the result, this writ application is allowed. There shall be however no order as to costs. Kanchan/rishi (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)