IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14411 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAZIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAZIPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR, KHAGAUL. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR, KHAGAUL. …….Petitioners. Versus PREM KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE GAURI SHANKAR SHARMA, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, GARDE-I, UNDER SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR, KHAGAUL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-NORTH PATEL NAGAR, ROAD NO.15, GOKUL PATH, KESHARINAGAR, PATNA. ……….Respondent. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. M.P. Dixit, Mr. S.K. Dixit, and Mr. Sanjay Choubey, Advocates. ------------ 4 11.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the sole respondent. The Union of India and the authorities of Railway have preferred this writ petition to challenge impugned order of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated 16.04.2010 whereby O.A. No.186 of 2010 preferred by - 2 - the sole respondent was allowed and the transfer order in respect of the respondent dated 11.03.2010 has been set aside on the ground that Inter-divisional transfer of the respondent was in violation of the policy decision of the Railways. The learned Tribunal has considered the policy relating to Inter-divisional transfer. We were also taken through the said provision which permits Inter-divisional transfer only for administrative reasons on account of vigilance cases against employees posted in the corruption prone mass contact areas such as booking and reservation counters, luggage and parcel offices, goods status and trains where common public comes into contact with the non-gazetted officials concerned. The other circumstance permitting Inter-divisional transfer is where a person is found to be repeatedly involved in vigilance cases involving corruption. In the case of the petitioner there is no allegation that he is involved in more than one vigilance case. It is also not in dispute that he was not posted in any mass contact area but was only an office superintendent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, although it has been shown that the authorities have the power to make Inter-divisional transfer, we are not persuaded to - 3 - interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal because policy decisions are meant to bind not only the employees but also the authorities so as to obviate chances of arbitrary action. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. PN (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)