The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors vs. Karabi Das And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was wrong to interfere with the transfer order. The Court clarified that while the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009 is a beneficial executive order and a guideline that must be mandatorily considered by the appointing authority, it is not a statute and cannot be followed mandatorily in all circumstances, especially when it conflicts with other guidelines. The Court noted that the respondent had been working in Golaghat District since 2004 and her transfer to the neighbouring district of Dimapur, approximately 100 kilometers away, was not unreasonable. The Court also pointed out that the respondent had exceeded the stipulated two-year tenure in a sensitive post (CPF, Numaligarh) as per the guidelines dated 16.04.2019. Therefore, the orders of the CAT dated 15.06.2020 and 12.01.2021 were set aside. The Court directed the respondent to join her new posting within two weeks and make a representation for transfer back to Golaghat District during the next routine transfers in April 2022, which the authority was directed to consider.

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and its officials, challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that interfered with the transfer of the private respondent. The respondent, a Superintendent in the Customs & Excise Department, was transferred from Numaligarh (Golaghat District, Assam) to Dimapur (Nagaland) by an order dated 14.08.2019. Both locations fall under the same division. The respondent challenged this transfer before the CAT, primarily relying on an Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009 concerning the posting of husband and wife at the same station. The respondent's husband works as an Engineer at Numaligarh, and she has a young child. The petitioners argued that the respondent had been posted in Golaghat District since 2004 and that guidelines regarding tenure in sensitive posts should be followed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in interfering with the transfer order of the private respondent, considering the established principle that transfer is an exigency of service and interference is warranted only in cases of violation of law, lack of jurisdiction, or malafide intent. 2. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009, which provides guidelines for posting husband and wife at the same station, is mandatory and overrides other departmental guidelines, specifically the guidelines dated 16.04.2019 regarding tenure in sensitive posts. Contentions of the Petitioners (Union of India): The petitioners argued that transfer orders should not be interfered with unless they are illegal, without jurisdiction, or malafide. They contended that the respondent had been working in the same district (Golaghat) since 2004, and her continued posting at Numaligarh was against government guidelines. They also highlighted the guidelines dated 16.04.2019, which stipulate a maximum tenure of two years in sensitive posts, a limit the respondent had exceeded. They argued that the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009 is a guideline, not a statute, and must be considered, but not necessarily followed mandatorily if it conflicts with other guidelines or service exigencies. Contentions of the Respondent (Karabi Das): The respondent relied on the Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009, arguing that it mandates posting husband and wife at the same station to enable them to lead a normal family life and look after their children. She asserted that this beneficial legislation protected her from transfer, especially given her husband's posting at Numaligarh and her young child.