Dasan . P.A vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Dasan P.A., an Inspector of Central Tax & Central Excise, challenged a transfer order dated September 22, 2022, issued by the Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Kochi (4th respondent). This order transferred him from Thrissur to Aluva. The petitioner had previously been transferred from Aluva to Thrissur during the COVID period at his request. After the COVID period, as he had not completed the minimum tenure of three years in Aluva, the authorities issued the impugned transfer order. The petitioner's Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, challenging this transfer order was dismissed by the CAT on May 17, 2023. The present Original Petition (O.P.) is filed against the CAT's order.

Held

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) decision to dismiss the petitioner's Original Application was not unreasonable or perverse. The Court noted that the petitioner had served in Thrissur for approximately 6.5 years and had been transferred there from Aluva during the COVID period at his request. Following the COVID period, the authorities transferred him back to Aluva as he had not completed the minimum tenure of three years in his previous posting there. While upholding the CAT's dismissal of the O.A., the Court, considering the petitioner's imminent retirement on May 30, 2024, directed that if vacancies are available in Thrissur, the petitioner can submit a representation to the 4th respondent (Commissioner, Central Tax & Central Excise, Kochi) seeking transfer and posting to such vacancies. The 4th respondent is to consider this representation without undue delay, preferably within one month of its filing, taking into account the petitioner's retirement date. No other orders were deemed necessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing the petitioner's Original Application is legal and valid? (Question of law and fact). The petitioner argued that the CAT's decision was unreasonable and perverse, and sought to set aside the CAT's order. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and its authorities, contended that the CAT had given good and convincing reasons for dismissing the O.A. and that there were no adequate grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's verdict. The respondents did not explicitly state their arguments beyond supporting the CAT's decision.