Delhi High CourtUnion Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Shri Rajender Singh on 11 May, 2007Equivalent citations: 141(2007)DLT71Author:Manmohan SarinBench:Manmohan Sarin,S.L. BhayanaJUDGMENT
 

Manmohan Sarin, J.C.Ms 6603-04/2007
 

 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.WP(C) 3522/2007 & CM 6602/20071. Petitioner-Union of India by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 18th October, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1340/2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order"). By the impugned order, the Tribunal quashed the transfer order assailed by the respondent. Petitioner was directed to consider posting the respondent and retaining him in the same Division preferably on a posting which was not in a mass contact area or public dealing, within four weeks.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Kumar Rajesh Singh attempted to urge that the transfer order was passed in exercise of powers conferred under the Indian Railways Establishment Code Volume I under Rule 226. It empowers the Railways to transfer an employee who is detected or found indulging imalpractice in mass contact area. Such transfers as per the policy are necessary to maintain integrity and probity in a public utility like Railways. It is no longer res integra that the Railway Authorities have the power to order inter zonal transfers in public interest, to prevent corruption and transfer employees who are detected or found indulging in malpractices in mass contact area to provide clean administration. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also sought to place reliance on a recent order passed in Union of India and Ors. v. Shri A.K. Gandhi WP(C) 2480/2007 where the Division Bench had issued show cause notice and also stayed the impugned order of the Tribunal. The said case is distinguishable on facts from the present case. Learned Counsel sought to urge that mere delay in making the transfer should not be treated as fatal to the order of the transfer itself which is made bonafide in public interest.3. We are not persuaded to entertain this writ petition in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal quashing the transfer order in the peculiar facts of this case.4. Respondent at the relevant time was posted as a Commercial Clerk at the booking office at Gannaur on 30th August, 2001. The Vigilance Branch of the Northern Railways had carried out a check on receiving complaints that Booking Clerks at Gannaur Railway Station were involved in malpractice and earning illegal money by excess charging from the passengers. Respondent was alleged to have demanded and collected excess fare from a decoy passenger of Rs. 446/- against actual fare of Rs. 426/-. Excess Government cash was also found with him. Charge sheet and inquiry proceedings were conducted and the respondent was awarded a major penalty of reduction of pay in same time scale Rs. 3200-4900 at initial stage of Rs. 3200/- for a period of two years. The penalty was awarded vide orders dated 7th November, 2003. Curiously, though vide orders dated 19th February, 2004, respondent was transferred in public interest from Panipat to Ambala but he was not relieved. He also absented from duty for sometime. Be that as it may, vide order of 17th May, 2005, respondent received a periodical transfer order by the Competent Authority to Panipat. However, on 11th November, 2005, the Railway Authorities passed an inter division/inter railway as a matter of policy transferring him from Ambala to Panipat. It is this order which was the subject of challenge before the Tribunal in OA.5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly noted that more than four and half years later after the date of incident and over two years after the imposition of the punishment and even after the expiry of period of punishment that the petitioners have woken up from slumber to pass the order of transfer purportedly on the ground of respondent having indulged in malpractices in the mass contact area in the incident of August, 2001.6. We see no reasons to differ with the views taken by the Tribunal and as noted in paras 17, 22 and 23 of the impugned order. We may also note that the Tribunal itself has observed and given liberty to the petitioners to post respondent in the same Division while quashing the inter division transfer to Ambala and to post him where he does not have any mass or public contact.In these circumstances, we see no ground to entertain this writ petition which is dismissed.