Vinay Kumar vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the case is disposed of at the ‘Admission stage’ itself.

2. This Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following reliefs:-

8. (i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 29.10.2026 and relieving order dated 03.11.2026 and direct the respondents to allow the applicant to be remain posted as Income Tax Inspector in the office of Income Tax Officer-1(2) (3), Meerut under the administrative control of PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.

(iii) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.

3. The impugned transfer order dated 29.10.2026 reflects that the applicant has been transferred from Income Tax Officer-1(2) (3), Meerut under the administrative control of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad to Aligarh under the Administrative Control of Pr. CIT (RU)-1, Aligarh and thereafter, he was relieved to join the said transferred place vide consequential order dated 03.11.2026.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant assails the transfer order dated 29.10.2026 as well as the consequential relieving order dated 03.11.2026 on the ground that the applicant had made complaints as a Whistle Blower to the superior authorities, regarding certain corrupt officials and as such, just to harass the applicant for making such complaints, he has been transferred to the aforesaid place of posting. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been transferred mid-term, despite having joined at Meerut only about two years ago, and that such transfer is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4.1

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, although the impugned transfer order mentions that the transfer has been made on administrative grounds, the file number referred to therein contains the word ‘complaint’, which indicates that the transfer has been made on the basis of a complaint. It is contended that an employee cannot be transferred merely on the basis of a complaint and, therefore, the impugned transfer order is punitive in nature. In this regard, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the following judgments/orders:-

i. In case of Mohammed Naiem Vs. The South Eastern Coalfileds Ltd. & ors. Passed in Writ Petition No.2993/2024 by the M.P. High Court.

ii. In case of R. Kalpana Vs. The State of Tamilnadu & Ors. Passed in W.P. No.30092/2017 and WMP No.32666 & 32667/2017 by the High Court of Judicatrue at Madras. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

4.2

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, being aggrieved by the transfer order, the applicant submitted a representation dated 02.11.2026 before the competent authority. However, no heed was paid to the said representation, and the applicant was ultimately relieved to join at his transferred place of posting vide order dated 03.11.2026. The said representation has not been decided by the respondents till date. 4.3

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the grievance of the applicant may be redressed, if a direction given to the competent authority amongst the respondents to decide the pending representation within the stipulated period of time.

5. Justifying the impugned order, Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of transfer as the same has been issued on Administrative ground and the same has been issued by the competent Authority. The applicant has already transferred, in this respect, relieving order has also been issued vide order dated 03.11.2026.

6. Be that as it may, having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that the applicant has been transferred from Meerut to Aligarh vide transfer order dated 29.10.2026, purportedly on administrative grounds, and was subsequently relieved from his place of posting vide consequential relieving order dated 03.11.2026. The applicant has assailed the aforesaid orders primarily on the ground that the transfer has been made to harass and victimise him on account of certain complaints allegedly made by him against some officials in his capacity as a Whistle Blower and also, the transfer was issued on the basis of a complaint, which was filed against him. Transfer is an incident of service, no right has accrued to an employee to stay at a particular place. Transfer order can be assailed only on the following grounds:-

1. If it has been done by way of punitive measure. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

2. If it is mala fide.

3. If it is in violation of statutory provisions.

7. However, in the present case, the applicant has specifically ground that his transfer has been ordered on the basis of a complaint filed against him by another employee. He has also alleged that the transfer is an act of victimisation on account of complaints made by him against certain officials in his capacity as a Whistle Blower. In this regard, the applicant has submitted a representation dated 02.11.2026 before the competent authority, which is stated to be still pending consideration.

8. In view of the specific grievance raised by the applicant and the pendency of his representation before the competent authority, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy or expressing any opinion on the legality and validity of the impugned transfer order, the present Original Application stands disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 02.11.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

9. Further, it is made clear that till disposal of the representation of the applicant, the transfer order as well as relieving order dated 29.10.2026 as well as 03.11.2026 respectively shall remain stayed.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, instant Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to cost.

11. Pending M.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Justice Rajiv Joshi)

Member (Judicial) pm

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA