DEEPAK KUMAR PRASUN vs EASTERN RAILWAY on 6 October 2026

ORDER

[Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member(A)] This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- “(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 05.08.2025 as contained in Annexure A/1, qua applicants, issued for the Respondent No. 5 as highly illegal, punitive, tainted with malice.

(ii) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 14.10.2025 as contained in Annexure A/2 Series issued by the Respondent No. 6 whereby the representation of applicants have been rejected illegally, maliciously, arbitrarily which are based on conjectures, surmises and also on wrong facts.

(iii) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the orders dated 03.11.2025 as contained in Annexure A/3 issued by the Respondent No. 6 whereby applicants have been directed to comply the transfer order dated 05.08.2025.

(iv) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct/command the respondents to allow the applicants to continue at their respective places at Bhagalpur to avoid any disturbance to the applicants, their spouses and family as has also been protected by Railway Board from time to time including dated 10.05.2005, 02.02.2010, 18.08.2022, 06.09.2022, 19.09.202 and 17.08.2023.

(v) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to grant all consequential benefit in favour of applicants.

2. For the sake of clarity, the brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants in the O.A., are being discussed and delineated as under:-

(i) The applicants, retired employees of Defence, were appointed in the Railways against the post of Goods Guard {South Eastern Railway (SER) and South Central Railway (SCR)} and subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Goods Train Manager.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-3- OA/050/00787/2025

(ii) Both the applicants submitted representations for their own request transfer on spouse ground from SER and SCR to Eastern Railway, Malda Division at Bhagalpur in view of circulars of Railway Board dated 10.05.2005 and 02.02.2010 (Annexure-A/4 series). Thereafter, they were posted under Eastern Railway, Malda Division at Sahibganj. After joining at Sahibganj the applicants further sent representations for their posting at Bhagalpur on spouse ground in terms of the above Railway Board orders including the Railway Board orders dated 18.08.2022, 06.09.2022, 12.09.2022 and 17.09.2023 (Annexure-A/4 series). The respondents acceded to the request of applicants and both the applicants were transferred from Sahibganj to Bhagalpur on 06.10.2023 and August, 2021 respectively (Annexures - A/5 and A/6).

(iii) It is stated that after completion of hardly 2 and 4 years respectively at Bhagalpur, the applicant were shocked to receive an order dated 05.08.2025 (Annexure-A/1) issued by the respondent no. 5 whereby altogether ten employees have been transferred in which applicants have been ordered to be transferred from Bhagalpur to Malda Town, i.e. 150 Kms away without disclosing any reason though the applicants were posted at Bhagalpur on spouse ground. Out of the ten persons, two persons figured at sl. No. 6 and 8 have been ordered to be transferred from Malda Town to Sahibganj and Jamalpur respectively. The applicants have alleged that no one has been posted/transferred vice applicants at Bhagalpur which, according to the applicants, shows ill intention, malicious attitude and colourable exercise of power only to harass and disturb the applicants. They have alleged that the impugned order qua applicants is not only illegal, punitive and arbitrary but also contrary to para-3.1, 5.2, 6.3.1, 7.2, 9, 9.1(v) and 9.2 of the policy decision of Railway Board circulated on 17.08.2023 (Annexure-A/5). The said policy decision clearly restricts frequent transfer and also deals with spouse grounds. Though Para 6.3.1 deals with the transfer at the instance of vigilance, but there is no vigilance angle in this case.

(iv) The applicants have referred to para-6, 6.1(i) & (ii) (a) to (d) of Master Circular dated 17.08.2023 as contained in Annexure-A/5 which speaks about the periodical transfer after 4 years concerning the employees holding sensitive posts in which the post of applicants did not find place.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-4- OA/050/00787/2025

(v) The applicants then sent their representations on 07.08.2025 (Annexure-A/7 Series) assailing the impugned transfer order in which the applicant no. 1 has taken additional point in his representation stating that his wife has undergone surgery by implanting/inserting two rods in her left arm after an accident.

(vi) It is further submitted that getting no fruitful result, the applicants and some others filed OA No. 609 of 2025 before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 19.08.2025 (Annexure-A/8) with direction upon the respondents/competent authority to consider the representation within 90 days. Getting no compliance of the order dated 19.08.2025 the applicants had filed representations including dated 25.08.2025, 03.09.2025, 19.09.2025 and 14.10.2025 (Annexure-A/9 Series) for cancellation of transfer order and allow them to perform their usual duty at Bhagalpur.

(vii) It is contended that the applicants have recently received orders dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure-A/2) issued by the respondent no. 6 rejecting the representation of applicants on totally wrong, baseless and malicious reasons. The applicants have alleged that respondent no. 6 is not the competent authority as the representation was addressed to the respondent no. 4 being the higher authority. The reason for transfer is based on alleged misconduct in respect of additional allotted work two months ago, which, according to the applicants, is not correct and contradictory to other GR and SWR instructions.

Applicants have further averred that the basic reason for issuing the impugned order of transfer is that the applicants have allegedly refused to comply with the direction to secure the train load in accordance with extant rules, namely Correction slip to SR 5.23 and Advance Correction Slip No. 2 to GR & SR, which is alleged to have been done two months before, is far from truth. The applicants have questioned about not issuing any show cause or initiation of departmental proceeding for such misconduct of refusing the work. It is contended that they have not refused the work rather they have done the said work in spite of the fact such type of duty is not concerned with the post of Senior Goods Train Manager. Thus, as per the applicants, it goes without saying that the applicants have been transferred by way of

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-5- OA/050/00787/2025

punishment and not in the exigency of service/administrative interest. The applicants have referred to the settled principle of law as also decided in the case of T.L. Gupta Vs. UOI wherein it has been held that for any misconduct, disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted and transfer is not the remedy.

(viii) After receipt of the said orders dated 14.10.2025, the applicants represented on 24.10.2025 (Annexure-A/10 Series) stating that the facts regarding refusal is totally false while enclosing the supporting documents.

(ix) Applicants have submitted that duty of securing the train load is the primary and only duty of Points man but the Railway administration has forcibly attached the Senior Goods Train Manager by way of Correction Slip to SR 5.23 and Advance Correction Slip No. 2 to GR & SR brought through clause 1(d) and 6(f) of JPO dated 13.11.2024. The same was assailed by the All-India Guard’s Council and others before Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 469 of 2025 which was disposed of on 09.04.2025 (Annexure-A/11) with direction to the respondents Railway Board to reconsider para 1(d) and para 6(f) of order dated 24.01.2025 and 02.04.2025 and till it is considered the effect of said correction slip was to be kept in abeyance. But subsequently the Railways have acted against the statutory provision of GR, and another OA was filed by the All-India Guard’s Council and Others before Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 877/2025. The said OA was admitted and pending for grant of interim relief vide order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure-A/12).

It is alleged by the applicants that revised JPO has not been acted upon in the Eastern Railway but the Malda Division has made it a prestige issue. That being the reason on the one hand the applicants are being forced to do the said work and on the other hand they have issued transfer order by way of punishment. Since the issue of implementation of said revised JPO is under judicial scrutiny before the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 877/2025 the applicants cannot be made scapegoat. It is further stated that the applicants have come under the respondents accepting reversion and bottom seniority on spouse ground.

(x) The respondents have issued another order dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure-A/3) whereby the applicants have been forced to comply the

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-6- OA/050/00787/2025

order dated 05.08.2025 (Annexure-A/1) whereby they were ordered to be transferred. Hence, the OA.

3. Per contra, the respondents have filed reply to the interim relief as well as written statement in response to the O.A.

4. In their reply to the interim relief, the respondents have submitted that both the applicants were transferred from Bhagalpur to Malda Town on administrative grounds vide Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer/Malda Town letter dated 05.08.2025. Aggrieved by the said transfer order the applicant filed OA No. 609/2025 before the Ranchi Bench of the Tribunal citing spouse ground and family difficulties. The said OA was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the applicant’s representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days. After considering the representation of the applicants, a detailed and speaking order dated 14.10.2025 was passed addressing every issue raised by the applicants. The respondents have denied that the speaking order is mechanical as the applicants were given an opportunity for reversion to Bhagalpur subject to satisfactory safety and operational performance. The plea of the applicants that the transfer order is illegal, punitive or colourable is wholly unfounded. It is settled proposition that transfer is an incidence of service and is ordinarily not interfered with unless proven mala fides or statutory violation which is absent in the present case. The applicants were transferred solely on account of serious violations of safety norms and not for

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-7- OA/050/00787/2025

any extraneous reason. The respondents have accordingly prayed that since the applicants have failed to establish a prima facie case, interim relief should not be granted as the same would adversely affect public safety, administrative discipline and smooth train operation.

5. The respondents in their written statement have submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid transfer order, sparing letters were issued to both the applicants on 06.08.2025 (Annexure-R/2 & R/3) and Crew Management System (CMS) IDs of both applicants were transferred from Bhagalpur Crew Lobby to Malda Crew Lobby (Annexure-R/4). It is alleged by the respondents that despite issuance of valid transfer orders, sparing letters and CMS transfer, neither the applicants signed the sparing letter nor joined the transferred place of posting, i.e. Malda Crew Lobby and remained unathorisedly absent from duty since 06.08.2025. The respondents have further contended that the direction was issued by this Tribunal on 11.12.2015 in the instant OA, for review of the conduct and performance of the applicants to decide about their continuation or otherwise at the place of posting earlier granted on spousal ground. During the review, it has been found that the applicants have willfully failed to comply with the lawful transfer order dated 05.08.2025, sparing letters dated 06.08.2025 and CMS transfer effected on 06.08.2025. The continued unauthorized

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-8- OA/050/00787/2025

absence of the applicants since 06.08.2025 constitutes disregard of lawful administrative instructions and the conduct unbecoming of railway servants and lack of devotion to duty. In view of the review of conduct and performance undertaken in compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 11.12.2015, it has been decided that the applicants shall continue at their place of posting as indicated in transfer order dated 05.08.2025. The respondents have accordingly prayed for dismissal of the OA.

6. In the rejoinder, the applicants while denying the contentions of the respondents in the written statement have reiterated the submissions as made in the OA. It is further submitted that the reason so assigned in the speaking order dated 14.10.2025 is baseless and totally wrong in view of the fact that the last 3 APARs for the year 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 (Annexure-A/1 Series), which were issued before the impugned order of transfer, the applicants have not only been graded “Very Good” but also their working performance, sincerity, integrity have been appreciated.

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the records, I have considered the matter in its entirety and come to the following conclusion:-

(i) The law governing judicial review of transfer orders is well settled. In State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-9- OA/050/00787/2025

402, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and that interference by a Court or Tribunal is warranted only on recognised grounds, such as mala fides, violation of a statutory provision or lack of competence of the authority passing the order. Courts and Tribunals are not appellate authorities over administrative decisions concerning the deployment of personnel, nor can they substitute their own assessment of administrative requirements for that of the competent authority.

(ii) The applicants have primarily relied upon their earlier posting at Bhagalpur on spouse grounds and the Railway Board’s instructions governing transfers. I find no basis to hold that an earlier posting granted on spouse grounds confers an indefeasible right to remain at that station indefinitely. As it is, sufficient time has elapsed since those transfer orders on spouse ground. Such circumstances deserve due consideration under the applicable instructions, but they do not, by themselves, override administrative requirements. The relevant question is whether the impugned action is contrary to a binding statutory provision or is otherwise vitiated on a legally recognized ground.

(iii) The Railway Board’s instructions dated 17.08.2023 and the other circulars relied upon by the applicants must be read in their proper context. The applicants have not demonstrated that any provision having statutory force absolutely prohibits their transfer from Bhagalpur or that the impugned order is rendered void merely because their earlier posting was granted on spouse grounds. Nor does the material placed on record establish that the transfer policy creates an

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-10- OA/050/00787/2025

unconditional right to remain at a particular station irrespective of administrative requirements.

(iv) The contention that the transfer is punitive also requires consideration. The original order dated 05.08.2025 transfers several employees and does not, on its face, impose any penalty or record a finding of misconduct against the applicants. The respondents have stated that the transfer was made on administrative grounds, including operational and safety considerations. The subsequent speaking orders refer to the applicants’ conduct and alleged failure to comply with certain operational directions. However, the mere reference to an employee’s conduct while considering a representation does not establish that the original transfer was imposed as a punishment.

(v) The distinction between a transfer simpliciter and a transfer imposed as a disguised punishment is material. In the present case, the applicants have alleged that the transfer arose from a dispute concerning the allocation and performance of certain operational duties. The respondents have disputed that allegation, and have maintained that the transfer was an administrative measure. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and the material placed before this Tribunal, the applicants have not established, by cogent material, that the transfer order was a colourable exercise of power or that its predominant purpose was to punish them without following the prescribed disciplinary procedure.

(vi) The applicants have also relied upon their APARs for the years 2022–23, 2023–24 and 2024–25, in which they state that they received favourable gradings. Such gradings are relevant service records; nevertheless, favourable APARs do not confer

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-11- OA/050/00787/2025

immunity from transfer or establish that an administrative decision concerning posting is mala fide. Equally, the disputed allegations concerning operational duties cannot, merely by being mentioned in a representation-rejection order, be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct. The issue before us is the legality of the transfer and the consequential administrative orders, not the determination of disciplinary guilt.

(vii) The applicants have further referred to proceedings before the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal concerning the implementation of instructions relating to the duties of Senior Goods Train Managers. The legality and scope of the directions passed in those proceedings must be determined in accordance with the orders made therein. The present Original Application cannot be converted into a collateral adjudication of the entire dispute concerning the relevant correction slips or the Joint Procedure Order. In the absence of material establishing that the impugned transfer violates a binding judicial direction applicable to the applicants, the pendency of the other proceedings does not, by itself, invalidate the transfer under challenge.

(viii) The objection concerning the authority that rejected the applicants’ representations has also been considered. The fact that a representation is addressed to a higher authority does not, by itself, render the decision taken by another authority invalid. The relevant consideration is whether the authority concerned was empowered under the applicable rules or delegation to take the decision. The applicants have not established from the material placed before this Tribunal that the impugned orders are vitiated by a demonstrated lack of competence.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-12- OA/050/00787/2025

(ix) The applicants’ allegation that no replacement was posted at Bhagalpur has also been considered. The absence of a replacement, by itself, does not establish mala fides or prove that the transfer was ordered for an extraneous purpose. Administrative deployment may involve adjustments in duties, staffing and operational arrangements that are not necessarily reflected by a one-to-one replacement at the station from which an employee is transferred. No cogent material has been placed before us to establish that this circumstance renders the impugned order legally unsustainable.

(x) This Tribunal is conscious that the applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 609/2025, which was disposed of with a direction for consideration of their representations by a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents thereafter issued the orders dated 14.10.2025. The existence of a subsequent speaking order does not, by itself, conclude the question of legality; nevertheless, upon examining the grounds raised in the present Original Application, I find no sufficient basis to hold that the transfer order must be quashed on any of the recognized grounds for judicial interference. The applicants’ disagreement with the administrative assessment does not, without proof of illegality, require this Tribunal to substitute its own decision regarding their place of posting.

(xi) The respondents have also stated that the applicants did not comply with the transfer order and that sparing letters were issued on 06.08.2025. The consequences, if any, of the applicants’ subsequent conduct or alleged authorized absence must be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and the facts established in the relevant proceedings. This Tribunal does not treat those

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-13- OA/050/00787/2025

allegations as proved misconduct in deciding this Original Application, nor is it necessary to determine disciplinary liability for the purpose of adjudicating the validity of the transfer in the instant O.A.

(xii) The interim order dated 05.01.2026 stayed the applicants’ transfer pending final adjudication, inter alia, because the performance review contemplated by an earlier order had not then been undertaken. That interim protection was interlocutory in nature and was not a final determination that the transfer order was illegal. The matter having now been considered on the pleadings and materials available at the final hearing, the continuation of interim protection must necessarily depend upon the final adjudication of the challenge.

(xiii) On a cumulative consideration of the facts and circumstances, I find that the applicants have not established that the order dated 05.08.2025 was passed in violation of a statutory provision, by an incompetent authority, or as a colourable exercise of power for the purpose of imposing punishment. Nor have they established an enforceable right to continue at Bhagalpur merely on the basis of their earlier spouse-ground posting or the administrative instructions relied upon by them. The grounds urged in the Original Application, therefore, do not warrant interference by this Tribunal with the impugned administrative decision.

8. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. The challenge to the orders dated 05.08.2025, 14.10.2025 and 03.11.2025 fails. The interim order dated 05.01.2026 shall stand vacated.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-14- OA/050/00787/2025

9. It is clarified that the dismissal of this Original Application shall not be construed as a finding that the applicants have committed misconduct in relation to the disputed operational duties. Any disciplinary or other consequential action, if warranted, shall be governed by the applicable rules and shall be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with law.

10. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Member (A) Srk.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI