Nirmal Singh Chauhan vs HOME AFFAIRS on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. ​ The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is directed against impugned order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby the representation of the applicant for cancellation of transfer from SIB Chandigarh to Srinagar on medical grounds pursuant to the orders of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court & Medical Board Report dated 15.12.2025, has been rejected. The Original Application is further directed against impugned memorandum dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure A-2). whereby the applicant has been

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​2 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

directed to vacate government accommodation. The applicant has prayed for relief as under: “(i) That Respondents be directed to produce the complete record/files with notings w.r.t. issuance of impugned order dated 30.12.2025 (A-1) for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) That impugned transfer order dated 30.12.2025 (A-1) passed by respondent No.3 and impugned memorandum dated 15.05.2026 (A-2) passed by office of respondent No. 5 be quashed /set aside.

(iii) That appropriate directions in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent authorities that keeping in view the acute medical condition of the applicant vis-a -vis recommendations of Medical Board dated 15.12.2025 (A-12) as well as OPD card of the applicant, to allow the applicant to continue to perform his duties at Chandigarh, strictly as per medical opinion, till the time applicant undergoes requisite surgery and recovers fully from his medical condition in the interest of justice.

(iv) That appropriate directions in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent authorities to forthwith disburse salary to the applicant due/not paid since April, 2025 and also to reimburse due and admissible amount of medical reimbursement to the applicant for facilitating him to undergo his spine surgery at PGIMER in the interest of justice.

(v) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may also pass any other order for the grant of relief(s) to the applicants which it may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

(vi) That cost of this application be also awarded in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice.”

2. ​ Case of the applicant in brief is that the applicant has been serving in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, since 25.11.2008, presently working as JIO-I/Executive. While posted at Chandigarh, he was transferred to SIB Srinagar vide order dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure A-3). He claims that he has been suffering from a serious spinal ailment, diagnosed as lumbar canal stenosis with radicular pain and subsequently as L4-L5 disc pathology, for which the doctors at PGIMER, Chandigarh, advised neurosurgical intervention. His subsequent medical records are stated to have prescribed light duty, avoidance of specified physical activities and, eventually, surgery as soon as possible.

3. ​ The applicant had earlier challenged his transfer in OA No. 617/2025, which was dismissed by this Tribunal on 14.08.2025 (Annexure A-4). His review application, RA No. 32/2025, was also dismissed on 09.09.2025. Thereafter, in CWP No. 29722/2025, the Hon’ble Punjab and

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​3 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

Haryana High Court, vide order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure A-5), disposed of the writ petition after recording the submission of the respondents that a representation made after joining the transferred place of posting would be decided within four weeks. The High Court is further stated to have requested the competent authority to consider the request of the applicant with an open mind, keeping his health issues in view, if he was found seriously ill and unable to join at the transferred station, and permitted medical examination if deemed appropriate.

4. ​ Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted representation dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure A-6). The respondents arranged his medical examination through GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh, which referred him to PGIMER for an opinion (Annexures A-7 to A-9). The Medical Board’s report dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure A-12) assessed him as fit for light duty, subject to specified restrictions, including avoidance of climbing stairs, bending, lifting heavy weights and squatting. The applicant also relies on his subsequent PGIMER outpatient records (Annexure A-13), stating that he was advised to avoid travel and was advised surgery as soon as possible on 24.04.2026.

5. ​ The applicant challenges the memorandum dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure A-1), received by him on 05.01.2026, whereby his request for cancellation of transfer on medical grounds was rejected and he was directed to join SIB Srinagar immediately. He contends that the order did not consider the Medical Board’s report dated 15.12.2025 and was issued without due consideration by the competent authority. In the ensuing contempt proceedings, the respondents filed a reply dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure A-14) and a supplementary affidavit dated 21.03.2026 (Annexure A-16). This Tribunal dismissed the contempt petition on 30.04.2026 (Annexure A-17), observing that substantial compliance with the High Court’s order had been demonstrated. The applicant subsequently approached the High Court in CWP No. 17920/2026, which was disposed of on 29.05.2026 (Annexure A-19), after his counsel sought permission to avail the appropriate remedy to challenge the transfer decision.

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​4 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

6. ​ The applicant further challenges the memorandum dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure A-2), directing him to vacate his government accommodation within seven days, failing which damage charges/penal rent would be levied. He states that his representation dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure A-18), seeking that the notice be kept in abeyance, was submitted in view of the pending challenge to the transfer decision and his medical condition. He also submits that he has not received salary since April 2025, has not been permitted to resume duties at Chandigarh, and has not received medical reimbursement required for his proposed surgery at PGIMER. He refers additionally to the charge memorandum dated 21.04.2026 concerning alleged unauthorised absence from duty.

7. ​ The principal contention of the applicant is that the impugned memorandum dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) was issued without due consideration of the Medical Board’s report dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure A-12) and the subsequent PGIMER medical records (Annexure A-13), despite the observations contained in the High Court’s order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure A-5). He submits that the rejection of his representation is cryptic, unreasoned and does not demonstrate consideration of his medical condition in the manner contemplated by the High Court.

8. ​ The applicant further contends that the medical opinion records his fitness only for light duty, subject to specified restrictions, while his treating doctors have advised spinal surgery as soon as possible. The applicant asserts that directing him to join at Srinagar, despite these medical circumstances, is arbitrary and contrary to the medical advice on record. He also questions the authority of the officer who issued the impugned memorandum, asserting that the initial transfer was ordered by the Director, Intelligence Bureau, whereas the subsequent decision was taken with the approval of an officer junior to the competent authority.

9. ​ It is further contended that the reply and supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents in the contempt proceedings (Annexures A-14 and A-16) do not establish that the Medical Board’s report dated 15.12.2025 was considered before rejecting his representation. The

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​5 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

applicant disputes the finding of this Tribunal qua substantial compliance in its order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure A-17), maintaining that the material question of consideration of his medical condition remains unanswered.

10. ​ Regarding the government accommodation, the applicant submits that the notice dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure A-2), threatening declaration of unauthorised occupation and levy of damage charges/penal rent, is unsustainable in the circumstances, particularly while his request for retention at Chandigarh is founded on his medical condition. He also relies on the non-payment of salary since April 2025 and the non-reimbursement of admissible medical expenses, submitting that these circumstances have impeded his ability to undergo the advised surgery and caused financial hardship.

11. ​ The applicant asserts that he is willing to undergo transfer to any station in accordance with departmental orders after recovering from his medical condition and surgery. He accordingly seeks protection against the impugned orders and continuation at Chandigarh until he undergoes the requisite surgery and recovers, in accordance with medical advice.

12. ​ Per contra, the respondents oppose the Original Application as misconceived, devoid of merit and an abuse of the process of law, contending that it has been filed to circumvent a valid transfer order and avoid joining at SIB Srinagar. They submit that the applicant joined the Intelligence Bureau on deputation from Arunachal Pradesh Police on 27.11.2008, was absorbed as SA/Executive on 22.10.2012, and gave his willingness to serve anywhere in India, including border areas. The respondents assert that having served at Chandigarh for over 16 years and subsequently received promotions as JIO-II/Executive in 2013 and JIO-I/Executive in 2022, he cannot claim a vested right to remain posted at Chandigarh.

13. ​ The respondents contend that the transfer to Srinagar, ordered under the Annual General Transfer 2025 vide order dated 10.01.2025, was made in the ordinary course of administration and in accordance with

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​6 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

departmental transfer policy. They further raise the objection of constructive res judicata/issue estoppel, submitting that the transfer had already been challenged in OA No. 486/2025, which was withdrawn, and thereafter in OA No. 617/2025, dismissed on merits on 14.08.2025. The subsequent RA No. 32/2025 was dismissed on 09.09.2025. The respondents rely upon the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 29722/2025 (Annexure R-2), contending that the applicant’s counsel had undertaken that the applicant was not averse to the transfer and would join at the transferred place before making a representation. The respondents assert that the applicant breached this undertaking by submitting his representation dated 15.10.2025 without joining at Srinagar and is, therefore, not entitled to equitable relief.

14. ​ The respondents deny that the memorandum dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) was passed in disregard of the High Court’s order or without consideration of the representations of the applicant. They submit that the representations dated 15.10.2025 and 15.12.2025 were considered by the competent authority, and the decision was communicated vide the said memorandum. They maintain that paragraph 5 of the High Court’s order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure R-2), requesting consideration of the applicant’s case with an open mind in view of his health issues, was advisory in nature and did not mandate cancellation of the transfer. They further deny the allegation of incompetence, asserting that both the original transfer order and the memorandum dated 30.12.2025 were issued with the approval of the same competent authority.

15. ​ On the medical aspect, the respondents rely upon the PGIMER medical report dated 05.12.2025/15.12.2025, which assessed the applicant as fit for light duties subject to specified precautions. They contend that the applicant selectively relies upon the restrictions recorded in the medical documents while disregarding the finding of fitness for light duties. The respondents assert that the desk-based, analytical and administrative functions of the Intelligence Bureau fall within that

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​7 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

category. They also rely upon the earlier fitness certificate dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure R-4), considered in the earlier OA, and dispute the assertion of the applicant regarding physical incapacity, referring to his alleged ability to climb stairs, walk without support and drive four-wheelers.

16. ​ The respondents further dispute the plea of the applicant qua financial hardship, describing it as unsubstantiated, and point out that he continues to avail medical facilities at PGIMER and occupy departmental accommodation at Chandigarh. They deny that the rejection of his representation was non-speaking, arbitrary or contrary to the High Court’s order. They also rely upon the dismissal of the contempt petition on 30.04.2026 and the subsequent disposal of WP No. 17920/2026 on 29.05.2026, as recorded in Annexure R-3, to oppose the allegations of non-compliance made by the applicant.

17. ​ The respondents submit that the applicant was relieved from SIB Chandigarh with effect from 21.04.2025 (A/N), with directions to join at Srinagar after availing admissible joining time, but has not reported for duty there. They rely upon the subsequent direction dated 26.09.2025, issued vide Memo No. 01/SIB-JK/Estt2025(8)-3163 (Annexure R-5), requiring him to report at Srinagar, failing which action under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, would follow. They state that departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the said Rules have been initiated against him for continued unauthorised absence (Annexure R-6).

18. ​ Regarding the government accommodation, the respondents contend that the applicant continues to occupy the quarter allotted to him at Chandigarh despite having been relieved from that station and having received repeated directions to vacate it. They maintain that the final notice dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure A-2) was issued in accordance with departmental requirements and that damage charges have been levied with effect from 23.05.2026. They submit that the continued occupation prevents allotment of the accommodation to other eligible officers.

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​8 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

19. ​ The respondents deny liability to release salary for the period claimed, contending that the applicant has not joined duty at his transferred place of posting. They oppose the reliefs sought in the OA, reiterating that the applicant has remained absent despite departmental directions and the disposal of his earlier proceedings, and that no ground for judicial interference has been made out.

20. ​ I have heard the arguments addressed by learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record.

21. ​ The controversy that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the respondents dated 30.12.2025 rejecting the request of the applicant for cancellation of transfer on medical grounds, and the consequential notice dated 15.05.2026 directing him to vacate government accommodation, warrant interference by this Tribunal.

22. ​ The undisputed facts emerging from the pleadings are that the applicant has been serving in the Intelligence Bureau since 2008 and was transferred from Chandigarh to SIB Srinagar in the course of the Annual General Transfer, 2025. He was relieved from Chandigarh on 21.04.2025 but has not joined at the transferred station. The transfer had earlier been challenged in OA No. 617/2025, which was dismissed on 14.08.2025, and the review application was also dismissed. The subsequent proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court culminated in its order dated 08.10.2025, whereby the medical request of the applicant was left for consideration by the competent authority in the circumstances recorded therein. The respondents state that the representations of the applicant were considered and the decision was communicated through the impugned memorandum dated 30.12.2025.

23. ​ The law governing judicial review of transfer orders is well settled. Transfer is an incident of service and the choice of posting is ordinarily for the competent administrative authority. Judicial interference is warranted where the transfer is vitiated by mala fides or violates statutory provisions. This Tribunal cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the administration merely because another arrangement may appear

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​9 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

more suitable to the employee. An employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station.

24. ​ Applying these principles, on the material before this Tribunal, the applicant has not established that the transfer was actuated by mala fides, prohibited by any statutory provision, or ordered by an incompetent authority. The respondents have specifically denied the allegation qua want of competence and stated that the original transfer as well as the decision communicated on 30.12.2025 had the approval of the same competent authority. No material sufficient to displace this stand has been demonstrated by the applicant. The disagreement of the applicant with the decision on his representation, by itself, does not furnish a ground to set aside the transfer.

25. ​ The medical records, including the Medical Board report dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure A-12), record fitness for light duty subject to specified restrictions. The applicant relies also on subsequent PGIMER records, including the advice for surgery as soon as possible dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure A-13). These documents reflect the medical concerns of the applicant and merit appropriate consideration by the competent departmental authority. However, the report of fitness for light duty, read with the stand of the respondents regarding the nature of the duties available, does not by itself establish a legal entitlement to continue at Chandigarh indefinitely or until full recovery.

26. ​ The Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 08.10.2025 required the case of the applicant to be considered in the circumstances recorded therein. The respondents maintain that the representations were considered and the decision was communicated on 30.12.2025. Further, the contempt petition was dismissed by this Tribunal on 30.04.2026 upon finding substantial compliance with the High Court’s order. In the present proceedings, the material placed on record does not establish a ground warranting quashing of the impugned decision. The challenge by the applicant to the rejection of his medical request, therefore, cannot succeed.

SHIVAM

​ ​ ​ ​10 ​ (O.A.No.060/752/2026)

27. ​ As regards the notice dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure A-2), the continued occupation of the government accommodation by the applicant at Chandigarh has to be considered in the context of his having been relieved from that station and not having joined at the transferred place. In the absence of a subsisting order permitting retention or any established legal infirmity in the notice, no ground is made out for setting it aside. The claims relating to salary and medical reimbursement also cannot be granted through the broad directions sought in the OA. Their admissibility and treatment must be considered by the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable rules and the relevant facts, including the applicant’s service and absence status.

28. ​ For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal finds no sufficient ground for judicial interference with the impugned memorandum dated 30.12.2025 or the notice dated 15.05.2026. The applicant has not established a legal right to continue at Chandigarh pending surgery and full recovery. The Original Application is, accordingly, dismissed as being devoid of merit.

29. ​ It is, however, open to the applicant to join at his transferred place of posting and to submit an appropriate representation to the competent authority, supported by his latest medical records and advice, seeking such accommodation or other relief as may be permissible under the applicable rules. The competent authority shall consider any such representation in accordance with law and the material placed before it. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of any updated medical assessment or as a direction to grant a particular posting or service benefit.

30. ​ The Original Application is dismissed in the above terms. All pending Miscellaneous Applications shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

/s/

(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (J)

SHIVAM