IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22856 of 2008 Between: Sri V.Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Ramachandran, DTI/TCG, S.C.R. Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 South Central Railways UOI Reptd., by its General Manager, III Floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2 South Central Railways, Chief Personnel Officer, IV Floor Rail Nilyam, Secunderabad. 3 South Central Railways, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Vijayawada Division, Krishna District. 4 South Central Railways, Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, after calling for records and quash the order in O.A.No.306/2008 dated 1-10-2008 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 3rd respondent proceedings dated 02.05.2008 transferring the Applicant from the Vijayawada Division to Nanded Division and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY (ADD.CGSC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22856 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri G.M, J.) 1 This petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.306 of 2008, which was ﬁled questioning the charge sheet dated 07.05.2007 issued against him, and consequently set aside the order of the third respondent dated 02.05.2008 transferring the petitioner from Vijayawada Division to Nanded Division. 2 The issue involved in this Writ Petition is only with regard to the transfer of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that earlier he was placed under deemed suspension and subsequently the order of suspension was revoked on 02.05.2008 and he was transferred from Vijayawada Division to Nanded Division on administrative grounds. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.05.2008 contending that the second respondent is not the competent authority to issue the transfer order and also seeking for the release of subsistence allowance for the months of March and April 2008. The petitioner also contended that he could not be transferred from Vijayawada division to Nanded Division in view of the Circular dated 25.03.1967, which reads: “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 minor penalty.” 3 However, the Tribunal, on contest by the respondents, dismissed the said O.A. by the order impugned in this Writ Petition relying on the order dated 29.06.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.9901 of 2004, wherein a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with identical matter of this nature, declined to accept the contention of the petitioner therein that he could not be transferred from one division to another division in view of the circular dated 25.03.1967 (supra) when the disciplinary proceedings are pending, as there is no blanket prohibition for the transfer. The Division Bench further observed that in view of the circular issued on 19.02.1986, it is open for the authorities to transfer an employee to a nearby division or some other divisions in the same railway zone. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 5 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second respondent is not the competent authority and he lacks jurisdiction to issue such transfer proceedings and that the second respondent cannot transfer the petitioner to Nanded division, which is under the control of the ﬁrst respondent and as such, the ﬁrst respondent alone is competent to issue such transfer order, and the Tribunal has not taken this aspect into consideration. He further contended that as departmental proceedings against the petitioner are still pending at Vijayawada, the petitioner cannot be transferred to another division till ﬁnalisation of departmental proceedings in view of the circular dated 25.03.1967. 6 On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the transfer order discloses that it was issued by the authority having jurisdiction, with the approval of the competent authority and that since no mala ﬁdes are attributed to the respondents in transferring the petitioner, in view of the circular dated 19.02.1986, the authorities have the power to transfer an employee from one division to another division in the same Railways as there is no blanket prohibition of transfer. 7 We have considered the rival contentions of both the counsel. Admittedly, the petitioner is working in Vijayawada Division and he is sought to be transferred to Nanded Division and that disciplinary proceedings are pending in Vijayawada division. It is settled law that the transfer is an incidence of service and an employee is liable to be transferred wherever exigency exists. A reading of the transfer order shows that it was issued with the approval of competent authority and it is the discretion of the competent authority to transfer an employee on administrative grounds, which cannot be called in question. The transfer order itself is clear that it was issued with the approval of competent authority. No speciﬁc mala ﬁdes are attributed to the respondents and the transfer is on administrative grounds and not as a punitive measure. In fact, the Tribunal has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9901 of 2004, dated 29.06.2004, which had attained ﬁnality. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not suﬀer from any error of jurisdiction calling for interference in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. 8 The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from making a representation to respondents for being considered to be transferred to a nearby division within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, if he so desires. On making such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with Rules, within two weeks thereafter. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. ---------------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 22.10.2008 ------------------------------------ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. Kvsn