Ravindra Kumar Misra vs RAILWAY BOARD on 22 October 2026

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to transfer, the applicant has sought following reliefs:-

1. Issue an order or direction calling upon the Respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Tribunal the complete original file, noting sheets, correspondence, representation(s), recommendations and all other records which culminated in issuance of Railway Board Order No. E(O)IIl-2026/TR/428 dated 15.09.2026 in respect of the Applicant.

2. Issue an order or direction quashing and setting aside Railway Board Order No. E(O)III-2026/TR/428 dated 15.09.2026, contained in Annexure No. 1 of the OA.

3. Issue an order or direction directing the Respondents to permit the Applicant to continue in RDSO, Lucknow on his present post/posting in accordance with the applicable transfer and tenure policy, subject to lawful and bona fide administrative requirements.

4. Issue an order or direction awarding the cost of the present Original Application in favour of the Applicant.

5. Issue such other order or direction and grant such other or further relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in Research Designs and Standards Organization (RDSO, hereafter) in the year 1998 and in due course he was inducted into the Indian Railways Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME, hereafter) with allotment year 2012. While he was working in RDSO, a complaint related to sexual harassment at workplace was lodged against him by a female colleague on 22.01.2021. The matter was enquired into by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC, hereafter) and on the basis of its recommendations, departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant and a minor penalty was imposed on him vide order dated 01.03.2023 which has been challenged by the applicant in a separate OA No. 242 of 2023. The applicant was posted in North Central Railway from about August 2022 till July 2026. He applied for tenure posting in RDSO and he was transferred to RDSO vide order dated 13.03.2026 where he joined on 14.07.2026. However, the complainant represented against his posting in RDSO and the respondents transferred the applicant from RDSO to Modern Coach Factory, Rae Bareli (MCF, hereafter) vide order dated 15.09.2026. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s first contention is that the ICC did not recommend his transfer from RDSO and that during the pendency of OA No. 242 of 2023, he has undergone the punishment imposed upon him and that he has also been promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade by the respondents vide order dated 18.07.2022. His second contention is that in terms of the comprehensive transfer policy dated

31.08.2015 brought out by the respondents, the posting in RDSO is for a minimum tenure of two years which carries a tenure allowance of 10% of basic pay (RBE No. 181/2017) and curtailment of his tenure would not only be against the extant policy, but it would also put him to financial loss. His third contention is that he has been posted as Director/Testing-II in the Testing Directorate which is a separate and distinct Directorate from the Motive Power Directorate where the complainant is working and that he is residing outside RDSO’s campus. His fourth contention is that his wife is an employee of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and is working as Assistant Teacher in Lucknow. His fifth contention is that one of his daughters is studying in Class XI in a school at Lucknow while the other daughter is undergoing psychiatric treatment at Lucknow.

4. The respondents state that the ICC, in its report dated 13.05.2021, had found certain allegations of sexual harassment as substantiated and that in the ensuing disciplinary proceedings, the applicant was given penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide order dated 01.03.2023. They contend that the employer is required to ensure a safe, secure and dignified working environment for women employees in terms of statutory provisions and instructions and that on the complainant’s request and considering the findings of the ICC, a conscious decision was taken to transfer the applicant to the nearest possible place, i.e., MCF Raebareli.

5. Heard both the parties.

6. The law relating to judicial review of transfer orders is well settled through a catena of cases adjudicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been held that transfer is an incident (Gujarat Electricity Board vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433) and a condition of service (State Bank of India vs Anjan Sanyal AIR 2001 SC 1748) and it should not be interfered with unless it violates statutory provision (Act or rule) or is issued by an authority not competent to do so (State of U. P. vs Gobardhan Lal AIR 2004 SC 2165) or is mala fide, including transfer in lieu of punishment (Somesh Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors AIR 2009 SC 1399). 7.1 It is noted that the present controversy has its origin in the complaint of sexual harassment at workplace levelled against the applicant and the findings of the ICC. The law on sexual harassment of women at the workplace has evolved over the years attributable to seminal judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. To begin with, the concept of Complaints Redressal Committee originated from the guidelines and norms laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in Vishakha & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors AIR 1997 SC 3011 which led to amendment of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 with addition of rule 3-C in the year 1998 declaring sexual harassment of working women as misconduct. A similar provision has also been incorporated as rule 3-C in the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Further, a proviso below rule 14(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules was added in the year 2004 for treatment of the Complaints Committee as the Inquiring Authority under that rule. A similar proviso has been added below rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Rules, 1968. 7.2 Vishakha (supra) was followed by Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors vs Union of India & Ors AIRONLINE 2012 SC 632 which spurred promulgation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act, in short) to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment. The POSH Act mandates the employers to constitute Internal Complaints Committee under section 4 thereof. 7.3 The Handbook on POSH Act brought out by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in November, 2015 captures the context of sexual harassment at workplace in the following paragraph: “Across the globe today, workplace sexual harassment is increasingly understood as a violation of women's rights and a form of violence against women. Indeed, the social construct of male privileges in society continues to be used to justify violence against women in the private and public sphere. In essence, sexual harassment is a mirror reflecting male power over women that sustains patriarchal relations. In a society where violence against women, both subtle and direct, is borne out of the patriarchal values, women are forced to conform to traditional gender roles. These patriarchal values and attitudes of both women and men pose the greatest challenge in resolution and prevention of sexual harassment. Workplace sexual harassment, like other forms of violence, is not harmless. It involves serious health, human, economic and social costs, which manifests themselves in the overall development indices of a nation.” (emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that sexual harassment at workplace is a form of violence against women and that the patriarchal values of both men and women pose a challenge in its prevention and resolution. 8.1 A perusal of the ICC’s report dated 13.05.2021 reveals that the ICC found three out of four charges of sexual harassment of the complainant by the applicant as proved. The three charges which were found to be proved against the applicant by the ICC pertained to the continuous sexual harassment of the complainant, the obscene comments and telephonic indecent talk and attempt to touch the complainant in office and surveil the complainant’s house, and the misrepresentation of the image and character of the complainant after she refused his advances. The only charge found not proved was that the applicant had proposed to the complainant that they should visit places together unaccompanied by other persons. The ICC observed that the complainant was driven to contemplating suicide due to her

sexual harassment by the applicant and opined that it was necessary to post the applicant out of RDSO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow. The ICC also observed that the applicant used to pass objectionable remarks on two other female colleagues. The ICC made a special mention that all four male witnesses presented by applicant attempted to convey the innocence of the applicant and to spoil the complainant’s image in a concerted manner and recommended their posting to different places. It is evident from the ICC’s report that the applicant was found to be continuously harassing the complainant sexually at workplace in various ways and that apart from recommending disciplinary action against him, the ICC also recommended his transfer from RDSO. 8.2 Viewed in the above context, it cannot be said at all that the respondents’ decision to transfer the applicant to MCF Raebareli, when the complainant represented against the applicant’s posting back to RDSO from North Central Railway, is without basis. On the contrary, it is observed that the respondents’ action in transferring the applicant out of RDSO is entirely consistent with their obligation under the POSH Act to protect the complainant against sexual harassment at workplace. 8.3 The applicant’s plea that he has already been punished for the alleged misconduct of sexual harassment cannot be canvassed in favour of his continuance at RDSO owing to the recommendation of the ICC to post him out of RDSO as well as the statutory burden placed on the respondents to ensure prevention of recurrence of sexual harassment of the complainant by the applicant. The applicant’s contentions that he is posted in a different unit of RDSO than the complainant and that he is residing outside the RDSO’s campus also do not carry weight in view of the earlier instance of sexual harassment through telephone and surveillance of her house as brought out in the ICC’s report.

8.4 The applicant’s other contentions relating to his tenure posting at RDSO, the posting of his wife at Lucknow and the education and illness of his daughters cannot be construed to constitute an indefeasible right against transfer for the reason that the employers’ obligations under POSH Act would prevail upon the other guidelines which do not have statutory character [Gobardhan Lal (supra)]. For the same reason, the applicant’s reliance on various judgments [Director of School Education, Madras vs O Karuppa Thevan 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666 and OA No. 660/2023 Amar vs North Central Railway] would be of no avail to him. The applicant has also relied on this Tribunal’s judgment in OA No. 540 of 2025 Viddhyamati vs Northern Railway, but the facts of that case are distinguishable as the applicant therein was herself a victim of harassment, though not of sexual harassment, by her male colleagues as per the ICC’s report. 9.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 9.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 9.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A)

Warij Warij Yadav Digitally signed by Warij Yadav