K MUDDAPPA vs POST AP CIRCLE on 8 October 2026

O R D E R

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “….to call for the records pertains to the Memo No. VIG/MISC/4/CTR/2019 dt. 29.05.2023 (Annexure-I) irregularly transferring the applicant from D.Rajulur BO a/w.Chowdepalle SO to Madanapalle HO and

b) declare the above order of the 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and

c) be pleased to direct the Respondents to cancel the irregular transfer orders and retain him at D.Rajulur BO a/w.Chowdepalle and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows: i. The Applicant has been working as GDS Assistant Branch Postmaster (ABPM) at D Rajuluru Branch Post Office (BO) account with Chowdepalle Sub Post Office (SO), with effect from 8.3.1991. Ever since his appointment as ABPM, he has rendered 22 years of unblemished service. ii. While working so, he was transferred from D Rajuluru BO a/w Chowdepalle SO in Punganur Sub Division, to Madanapalle Head Post Office (HO), in Madanapalle Sub Division, which is 48 km away from the present place of working, vide memo, dt.29.05.2023, without furnishing any reasons, except mentioning that the transfer was ordered on vigilance grounds, in accordance with the Postal

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

Directorate Memo no. 17-31/2016-GDS, dt.21.10.2019. It is argued that, there were no complaints against the applicant. Neither his explanation was called for nor his statement was recorded on any complaint. The applicant is a Gramin Dak Sewak Assistant Branch Postmaster entrusted with the duty of delivery of letters to the public. He has no other powers and is working under the direct supervision of the Branch Postmaster, Sub Postmaster and Sub Divisional Inspector from whom there were no complaints or reports against him. The applicant never indulged in any activity attracting the vigilance angle, as defined by the CVC. Therefore, transferring the applicant on vigilance grounds is illegal and against the rules. iii. It is pleaded that the applicant's father died in the year 2021 and his only son expired in 2019. His mother, aged about 78 years, is suffering from multiple health issues and is bedridden. Similarly, his wife is also suffering from obesity and other health problems and needs the presence and assistance of the applicant. Under such circumstances, he cannot shift them to Madanapalle and maintain the family with the meagre salary of Rs.18,000/-, nor can he go alone, leaving them behind. His retention and continuance at the present place of working is very much essential in the interest of his family. iv. The GDS should have adequate means of livelihood, as per the GDS Conduct and Engagement Rules, 2020. At present, he is running a small flour mill in his village, to supplement his income, which he will lose if shifted to Madanapalle and it would not be enough to meet the house rent and medical expenses of his mother and wife. He

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

cannot commute from Madanapalle and vice versa on a regular basis, as the place is 48 km away and highly expensive, which the applicant cannot afford. v. It is also submitted that the applicant had submitted his representation, dt.01.06.2023, to the PMG, Kurnool/R-3, requesting him to continue him at the present place of working, but it is pending before him for consideration. In the meanwhile, R-4 & R-5 are forcing him to get himself relieved. Irreparable damage will be caused to the applicant and the lives of all his family members will be in jeopardy, if he is relieved.

3. The grounds raised for relief by the applicant include the following: i. The action of the respondent authorities in transferring the applicant from E Rajuluru BO to Madanapalle HO, against the rules and the CVC orders, is illegal and arbitrary. The transfer ordered on vigilance grounds is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules since, as per para 2 B

(ii) of the OM, dt.21.10.2019, transfer of a GDS can be considered on vigilance grounds, if there are regular complaints substantiated by documentary evidence. The relevant para is extracted below - "GDS against whom there are regular complaints substantiated by documentary evidence should be considered for transfer under vigilance ground."

In the instant case, there are no complaints against the applicant nor at any point of time, he was called upon to explain on any complaint. Therefore, there is no justification in transferring him on vigilance grounds.

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

ii. It is also submitted that in CVC OM No.004/VGL/18, dt.13.04.2004, vigilance angle has been clearly defined. He has not committed any of the irregularities defined therein and, therefore, the transfer on vigilance grounds is against the rules and liable to be set aside. iii. Further, the applicant’s mother and wife, who are suffering from health problems need his presence and services. His transfer affects their lives adversely. His request for retention deserves consideration on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. iv. The applicant has relied upon the following judgments to support his case:

a. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of SK Noushad Rahaman & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors in Civil Appeal No.1243 of 2022, on March 10, 2022, has held that the State, while formulating a policy for its own employees, has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and postulate of policy.

b. The CAT Circuit Bench, Nainital, in the order, dt.19.02.2019, has recorded its observations in OA.No.330/616/2018, in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of PSL Abbas and others, mentioned in the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.No.99 of 2019 (S/B) with Stay Application No.3074 of 2019, summarised as follows: "1) Transfer is a condition of service.

xxx

xxx

xxx

5) Transfer order should be passed in public interest or administrative exigency, and not arbitrarily or for extraneous

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

consideration or for victimization of the employee nor it should be passed under political pressure.”

v. In view of the foregoing submissions, the applicant has challenged, what he calls, the untimely, unjustified and illegal transfer. Hence, the OA.

4. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and opposed the relief by filing a written reply stating that – i. On receipt of a PG Portal complaint, vide DPODT/E/2019/22040, dt.11.09.2019, containing allegation of drawal of salary in the name of the substitute, Smt.K.Sreedevi, w/o K.Muddappa, the applicant herein, for non-working period, from 07.06.2018 to 31.07.2018, at the Kondamarri BO, as GDSMC/MD(Dak Sevak), the respondent office had directed the ASP(HQ), O/o SPOs, Chittoor Division, to inquire into it. Accordingly, the ASP enquired into the matter and submitted his report, vide Memo, dt.24.03.2021. On inquiry/verification of the records of the Kondamarri BO, for the period from 07.06.2018 to 31.07.2018, for which complaints were made, it was revealed that Sri K.Muddappa, АВРМ, D.Rajulur BO a/w Chowdepalle SO, was given the additional charge of the vacant post of GDSMC/MD(Dak Sevak), Kondamarri BO a/w Chowdepalle SO, for the above said period and Smt K.Sreedevi, who is shown as the substitute, as per the leave orders for the said period, issued by the IP, Punganur Sub Division, had actually not worked during the above said period as GDSMC/MD(Dak Sevak), Kondamarri BO, but salary was drawn for

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

Smt K.Sreedevi, though she had not actually worked in the vacant post. ii. In connection with the above complaint, ASP(R), O/o SPOs, Chittoor Division, recorded the statement of Smt K.Sreedevi, wherein she admitted that she had not worked at the Kondamarri BO as a substitute, in the post of GDSMC/MD (Dak Sevak), during the relevant period, because of her ill health and one P.Nagma had worked during that period, on her behalf. She also stated that she had studied upto 7th standard and she cannot speak or write Telugu. Enquiries revealed that Smt K.Sreedevi, w/o K.Muddappa, had studied only upto the 7th class along with Kannada at Bangalore. Contrary to Rule 3(B) (i) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (Rules of 2011, for short), all approved categories of Dak Sevaks should possess educational qualification of 10th standard, whereas she had studied only upto the 7th standard and was, thus, not eligible to work as GDS substitute in any post, still Sri K.Muddappa ABPM, D.Rajaluru, showed her as a substitute, as per the leave orders. iii. As per Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011, if any irregularities are committed by the substitute, it is the responsibility of the original Gramin Dak Sevak(ED Agent) who provides the substitute in his/her place to work. Sri K.Muddappa is the additional charge holder of GDSMC/MD(Dak Sevak), Kondamarri BO a/w Chowdepalle SO and Smt K.Sreedevi is shown as a substitute and, in her name, salary was drawn though she had not actually worked in the said post. Drawal of

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

salary for an ineligible substitute for the post and without the substitute actually working, is a huge loss to public exchequer, which comes under vigilance grounds. iv. It is argued that, for nominating an ineligible substitute for the post of GDSMC/MD (Dak Sevak), and on account of regular complaints, substantiated by documentary evidence, transfer of Sri K.Muddappa(Applicant), was proposed to some other location in the Division, as per the directions of Respondent No.3, vide letter No. Vig/Misc/4/CTR/2019, dt.05.04.2023. Hence, the Transfer and Placements Committee, consisting of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 and Smt.B.Neelima, ASP, Madanapalle Sub Division, met on 21.04.2023, to consider the transfer case of the applicant to Madanapalle HO, as Dak Sevak in the same TRCA level of Rs.12000-29380, under Madanapalle Sub-division, in accordance with the provisions of Para B(ii) of the Directorate OM, dt.21.10.2019, on vigilance grounds. v. The TPC minutes were approved by the PMG, Kurnool Region/R-3, on 24.05.2023, and as per his orders, vide Memo No. VIG/MISC/4/CTR/2019, dt.24.05.2023, transfer order was issued to Sri K.Muddappa (Applicant), vide memo No. VIG/MISC/4/CTR/2019, dt.30.05.2023, through the IP, Punganur(R-

5) to relieve him, immediately, by making suitable arrangements. But the Applicant was not willing to get relieved from the said post and went outside the BO, informing the IP, Punganur/R-5 that he was shivering and got chest pain and he would come in 10 mins, but did not report back. Representation, dt.01.06.2023, from the Applicant

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

addressed to the PMG, Kurnool, for his retention at D Rajulur BO, was also disposed of, vide Respondent-3 office memo No.Vig/Misc/4/CTR/2019/Kw, dt.22.06.2023. The averment that there were no complaints or reports against the applicant is not correct. vi. According to the Respondents, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or the Competent Authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty, if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence, even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous, as per the law laid down in Parma Nanda Vs. State of Haryana and Others 1989 (2) Supreme Court 177. vii. It is prayed to dismiss the OA as being devoid of merits.

5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material on record. The following aspects of the case are worth mentioning –

i. Initially, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide order, dt.07.06.2023, this Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of the representation, dt.01.06.2023, submitted by the applicant, with a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days from the date of order. Till then, the applicant was allowed to work in the same place of posting.

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

ii. MA.No.244/2023 was filed by the applicant's counsel with a prayer to direct the respondents to maintain status-quo by continuing the applicant in the present post, i.e., GDS ABPM, D Rajulur BO a/w Chowdepalle SO, till the disposal of the OA. The applicant's counsel submitted that the respondents have not passed speaking order, as directed by this Tribunal. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the letter, dt. 23.06.2023, Respondents were directed to allow the applicant to work in the present place of posting until further orders. MA.No.244/2023 was, accordingly, disposed of.

iii. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that, none of the conditions under vigilance angle, as per the CVC Office Order No.23/4/14, dt.13.04.2014, are attracted to this case. As urged by him, the applicant is not responsible for drawal of salary in the name of Smt. Sreedevi, which she has passed on to Nagma who had actually worked during that period, on her behalf, as mentioned at paras 3.1 & 3.2 of the Reply of the respondents. However, according to him, the applicant, K. Muddappa, is in no way responsible for this internal arrangement, nor has Nagma raised any complaint, in this regard.

iv. Learned counsel for the Respondents has drawn attention of this Tribunal to Rule 7(4) of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, annexed as Annex.R-IV to the Reply, according to which, the applicant is responsible for what has happened. In regard to the responsibility of the applicant, learned counsel for the Respondents has contended that since Smt. Sreedevi was ineligible to receive salary without having actually worked, and also because she is the wife of the applicant, Sri K. Muddappa, the applicant

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

cannot evade responsibility. Furthermore, she possesses qualification of 7th standard, whereas the required qualification is 10th standard. v. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that Sri Muddappa was not authorised to appoint any Substitute without the approval of Sub-Divisional Inspector of Posts. All he did was recommend the name of Smt. Sreedevi, who happens to be his wife.

vi. The counsel for the respondents has taken us to para 3.2 in the reply, in respect of the issue as to what is the evidence that the applicant had shown his wife as Substitute, as per leave orders. According to the counsel for the applicant, it can be ordered only by the Sub Divisional Inspector and not by anyone in the position of an ABPM, as the applicant was. He has drawn attention to letter, dt.20.07.2018, and the rule position, vide letter, dt.16.12.2024. According to the counsel for the applicant, this rule position does not apply here, as he was not on leave, but was deputed to another Post Office by the Sub Divisional Inspector. It is also pointed out that the letter, dt.20.07.2018, shows that the substitutes, including K. Sreedevi, wife of the applicant, possess the required educational qualification and are within the prescribed age limit.

vii. The applicant’s counsel maintains that Mrs. K.Sreedevi never worked as a substitute GDS MC/MD (ABPM). Though salary was drawn in her name, it was paid to one Ms. Nagma who had actually worked. He also states that such an arrangement is made for the sake of expediency. In this case, there is no undertaking by the applicant in respect of appointment of the substitute. The respondents’ counsel has highlighted the point regarding lack of qualification and also lack of knowledge of Telugu on the part of

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

Mrs. K.Sreedevi, wife of the applicant. In this matter, action was also taken against the Mrs. K Vidyavathi, IP, Punganur Sub Division, for allowing such irregularity. The order of penalty, vide proceedings, dt.20.10.2022, has been annexed as Annexure A-4 with the affidavit.

6. Respondents have clarified the following points, as mentioned in the Daily order, dt.01.09.2025 -

1. Was there any specific recommendation by the Applicant in favour of his wife as substitute?

2. Applicability or otherwise of Rule under E.O dated 29.07.1970 in the present case, as the Applicant was not on leave.

3. Grounds, if any, for treating the transfer as the result of a vigilance case.

(i) In respect of Point No.1, it is reported that, upon receiving APP-45, i.e., leave application for the Applicant, leave orders were issued by the Inspector Posts, Punganur Sub-division, vide letter, dt.18.06.2018 and 20.07.2018. Based on those leave orders, substitute salaries were drawn by the Postmaster, Madanapalle HO, for the period from 07.06.2018 to 31.07.2018. It was reported by Respondent No.5, vide letter, dt.25.03.2026, that the said leave application is not traceable, despite sincere attempts to trace the same. Smt.K.Vidyavathi, the then IP Punganur Sub-division, was also awarded the penalty of "reduction of pay from Rs.62200/- to Rs.60400/- in level-8 of pay matrix for a period of one year without cumulative effect", by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Director of Postal Services, O/o. PMG, Kurnool Region, Kurnool, for approving the ineligible substitute, viz., Smt K.Sreedevi, nominated by the

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

Applicant, Sri K.Muddappa, and issuing orders to draw the salary, though she had not worked for the above period.

(ii) In respect of Point No.2, it is submitted that whenever a BPM/ABPM post falls vacant, a working BPM/ABPM will be given additional charge to that vacant post, under stop-gap arrangement, under which the additional charge BPM/ABPM applies for leave (technically) for the additional charge post and nominates a suitable substitute on his behalf in that post. The same is approved by the competent authority and leave orders are issued for the nominated substitutes. DG's Instructions No. (2) (2) below Rule 7 of Swamy's Compilation of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, Eleventh Edition, stipulates the following: "During leave, every GDS should arrange for his work being carried on by a Substitute who should be a person approved by the authority competent to sanction leave to him."

Hence, the responsibility of the vacant post lies with the BPM/ABPM, who accepts the additional charge of that vacant post. Based on the above submission, U.O No.43-13/70-Pen, dt.29.07.1970, will apply as per DG's Instructions No. (4) below Rule 7 of Swamy's Compilation of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, Eleventh Edition, in this case. Though the Applicant was not on leave, he applied technically for leave for holding additional charge. In this case, the post of ABPM(MC/MD) of Kondamarri B.O a/w Chowdepalle S.O was given as additional charge to Sri K.Muddappa, ABPM, D.Rajalur B.O a/w Chowdepalle SO. As such, he nominated Smt K.Sreedevi, his wife, as a substitute to the post of Kondamarri B.O a/w Chowdepalle S.O.

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

(iii) In respect of Point No.3, attention has been drawn to the detailed report submitted in the reply statement showing the outcome of the enquiry that followed receipt of the PG Portal complaint DPODT/E/2019/22040, dt.11.09.2019, regarding allegation of drawal of salary for the substitute, Smt.K.Sreedevi, w/o. K.Muddappa, for the period from 07.06.2018 to 31.07.2018, at Kondamarri BO. Smt K.Sreedevi, who was shown as substitute, as per leave orders for the said period, but had not actually worked as GDS, though salary was drawn in her name. Despite being ineligible, in terms of her education, as per the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, which was admitted by her, the Applicant had nominated her as substitute. Thus, the Applicant facilitated irregular drawing of salary (TRCA) in favour of an ineligible person, who did not work actually. An amount of Rs.18340/- was recovered from the Applicant @ Rs.4585/- per month, in 04 monthly instalments, from May-2023 to Aug-2023. As there is financial irregularity on the part of the applicant, as above, the case is treated under Vigilance Grounds. Hence, transfer order was issued to Sri K.Muddappa on vigilance grounds.

7. The Applicant has tried to underplay the irregularity and complaints against him by stating that the respondents have not furnished any grounds, except saying that allowances were drawn for Smt. K. Sridevi without working in the post of GDS MC/MD. It is submitted that Smt. K. Sridevi could not work due to health issues. However, in her place, Mrs.S.Nagma had worked. The allowances received for the period, were paid to Mrs.S.Nagma from whom there is no complaint of non-receipt of allowances. The Substitute arrangement, placing

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

Smt.Sreedevi, was approved by the Sub-divisional head. It is argued that for specific acts of misconduct, disciplinary action has to be taken against the employee. He should not be transferred, as a measure of penalty, as per law and rules.

8. It is reiterated by the Respondents that, as per Rule 3(B) (i) of the GDS, (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, all approved categories of Dak Sevaks should possess educational qualification of 10th standard, whereas in the above case, the substitute had studied only up to the 7th standard. She is not eligible to work as GDS substitute in any post, but Sri K.Muddappa had shown her as substitute, as per the leave orders. As per Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2011, if any irregularities are committed by the substitute, it is the responsibility of the original Gramin Dak Sevak(ED Agent), who provided the substitute in his/her place to work.

9. The applicant reiterated that the Respondents did not produce any leave application or any specific recommendation by the applicant in favour of his wife as substitute and it was evident that there is no documentary proof against him. It is also submitted that Smt.Sridevi meant to work as substitute in place of the applicant, has already stated that she had fallen sick and, in her place, Ms.Nagma had worked. The wages received for the period were paid to Ms.Nagma and there was no complaint from Ms.Nagma, in this regard. It is argued that, though the applicant was not personally responsible, the respondents got an amount of Rs.18,340/- recovered. The substitute arrangement of Smt. Sridevi and further arrangement of Ms.Nagma in her place do not fall under vigilance grounds, as per the applicant. It is again submitted

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

that the applicant has not committed any of the irregularities as defined in the CVC OM.

10. It is noticed that the relevant provisions under the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2011, are as follows: “7.Leave

xxx

xxx

xxx

(2) During leave, every ED Agent should arrange for his work being carried on by a substitute who should be a person approved by the authority competent to sanction leave to him. Such approval should be obtained in writing.

xxx

xxx

xxx

U.O. No. 14280/70-Adv. (A), dated 31-8-1970

The ED Agent has in his application for leave agreed that his substitute will work on the responsibility of the ED Agent during the absence on leave of the latter according to the terms of the security bond executed by the ED Agent. Consequently, the substitute becomes an agent of the ED Agent in so far as the postal authorities are concerned and the ED Agent as the principal will be liable in a Civil action by third parties for the torts committed by his nominee.”

11. The responsibility of the ED Agent in the choice and detailing of the substitute cannot be doubted in the light of the provisions above as well as the leave orders issued by the Inspector Posts, Punganuru, dt.18.06.2018 and 20.07.2018, both of which start as follows:- “The under mentioned GDS who are holding additional charge of the posts noted against each are permitted to proceed on LWA for the periods noted and posts noted against each by appointing a substitute on their own responsibility.”

The LWA orders are addressed to the GDS’s concerned, including the applicant. Neither of these orders are challenged by the applicant. The name of his wife, K.Sreedevi, is shown along with a/c No.3431881262 to which the remuneration was credited by the Postal Dept., which is admitted by her. Obviously, details of accounts could not have been provided by the IP,

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

Punganuru, on her own, even though the IP was at fault and was penalised. The recovery made from the applicant, for drawal of money in the name of his wife, has not been challenged by the applicant before us.

12. We find that there was a serious complaint against the applicant which was properly probed and substantiated. Evidence against the applicant is given in the Detailed Report, dt.24.03.2021, in the matter of engagement of his wife as a substitute. Admission of his wife is recorded in the report. The applicant rushed to the Tribunal after submitting his representation, dt.01.06.2023, against his transfer order, dt.29.05.2023. The representation was disposed of vide proceedings, dt.22.06.2023. The relevant portions of the proceedings are extracted below:- “7. The Hon'ble CAT vide interim orders dated 07.06.2023 has directed the following “To dispose of the representation dated 01.06.2023 submitted by the applicant with a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days. Till then, the applicant shall be allowed to work in the present place of posting.”

8. In compliance of above orders of Hon'ble CAT, the submissions of Sri K. Muddappa are discussed as follows:

(i) The submission of the said ABPM that no complaints were received against his work and conduct in his entire career of 32 years is incorrect, as four series of complaints were received against him in the year 2019 alleging that he had demanded bribes from substitutes working in vacant GDS posts and also from Smt. K. Geetha, GDS BPM, Mekalachinnapalli BO and Smt. K. Hemavathi, GDS MC/MD, M.C. Palli S.O. Hence, as per the directions of C.P.M.G, the said ABPM was transferred on vigilance grounds for carrying out independent inquiry against him as per the provisions contained in Directorate letter No. 17-31/2016-GDS dated 21.10.2019.

9. I have gone through the records of the case and the reasons put forth by Sri K. Muddappa in his representation dated 01.06.2023 are not at all convincing as the allegations made in the said complaints are grave in nature and it supports the action taken by the Department as per the provisions contained in Directorate letter No 17-31/2016-GDS dated 21.10.2019. Therefore, the following is ordered:

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

ORDER

I, M.Jagadish Pai, Director of Postal Services, Kurnool under the provisions contained in Directorate letter No. 17-31/2016-GDS dated 21.10.2019 hereby Reject the request of Sri K.Mudddappa dated 01.06.2023 to allow him to work at D. Rajaluru B.O a/w Chowdepalle S.O.”

13. Having gone through the facts of the case, the provisions under the GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2011, the Dept. of Posts OM, dt.21.10.2019, on transfer of GDS on Vigilance Grounds r/w CVC OM, dt.13.04.2004, there appears to be no doubt about the involvement of the applicant in a number of irregularities, the details of which are recorded, in detail, after proper enquiry, as above. Action was taken against him by way of transfer and the IP, Punganuru, was dealt on a charge. There is no perversity in the action taken by the Respondents. Representations of the applicant as well as admission of his wife in respect of her appointment and crediting of the amount to her account are matters of record. Mere absence of leave application cannot outweigh the host of other materials on record against him. His case clearly falls under Para B (ii) of the OM, dt.21.10.2019. Further, according to Rule 7(4), the ED Agent is liable for the irregularities attributed to the substitute. The applicant cannot deny knowledge of his wife working in his place as his substitute during the relevant period, for which salary was drawn in her name and credited to her account and was subsequently recovered from him.

14. In regard to transfer of employees on valid grounds, the same Bench of this Tribunal has observed in its order, dt.10.08.2026, in OA.No.282/2024, as follows: “14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a plethora of judgments, has held that Courts and Tribunals are not expected to interfere with day-to-day orders

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA

issued in administrative interest, unless they are shown to be manifestly illegal or malafide. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the judgments quoted below, are relevant to the case in hand:

1. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 : - “4. …… If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest.”

2. Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 : - “7.Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it.”

3. Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 15 SCC 178 :- “8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other.

x x x x “6. … the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides and violation of any specific provision….”

15. In the light of the above, no interference is called for in the matter of transfer of the applicant …..”

15. In the case at hand, authorities have considered the complaints and on the basis of the irregularities, noticed on the part of the applicant, his transfer has been ordered. His representation against the said transfer order has been considered and disposed of through a reasoned order. Thus, no interference is called for in the matter of transfer of the applicant. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, staying the transfer, is vacated. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)

Administrative Member

08.10.2026 /ps/

Location:

PANDIRLA PALLI SANDHYA