CAT Ernakulam Quashes Punitive Transfers Disguised as Administrative Orders Under Indian Railway Establishment Code

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, has delivered a significant ruling on the validity of transfer orders issued under the guise of administrative exigency when the real motive appears to be punitive. The Tribunal quashed the transfer orders of three loco pilots who were abruptly transferred from Trivandrum Division to Tiruchirappalli Division after acting in a video highlighting the grievances of railway staff, holding that such transfers cannot substitute for proper disciplinary proceedings.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

Three applicants - Subin Chakravarthy (O.A. 346/2024), Anoop Sukumaran (O.A. 347/2024), and T.C. Sundaram (O.A. 348/2024) - are employees of the Southern Railway. They were transferred from Ernakulam Junction in the Trivandrum Division to Villupuram in the Tiruchirappalli Division via an order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure-A1). The transfer was allegedly motivated by their participation in a 17-minute Malayalam video titled ‘Siren’, produced by the All India Loco Running Staff Association and uploaded on YouTube on 30.03.2024. The video depicted the alleged hardships faced by loco running staff, including denial of rest, leave, and medical facilities.

Key Facts

• Subin Chakravarthy (O.A. 346/2024):

  • Joined service as Assistant Loco Pilot on 28.05.2007 in Palakkad Division.
  • Transferred to Trivandrum Division in May 2019 and promoted to Senior Assistant Loco Pilot.
  • His 15-year-old son suffers from 80% permanent disability (Cerebral Palsy and locomotor disability).
  • Claimed to be the primary caregiver for his son, who attends Deepthi Special School in Muhamma.

• Anoop Sukumaran (O.A. 347/2024):

  • Joined service as Assistant Loco Pilot on 27.06.2000 in South Eastern Railway.
  • Transferred to Chennai Division in 2003 and later to Trivandrum Division in 2008.
  • Promoted to Loco Pilot/Goods in 2022 and working in Ernakulam Junction since then.

• T.C. Sundaram (O.A. 348/2024):

  • Joined service as Assistant Loco Pilot on 08.07.1991 in Palakkad Division.
  • Transferred to Trivandrum Division in April 1999 and promoted to Loco Pilot/Mail in December 2015.
  • Due for retirement on 31.05.2026.

• The video ‘Siren’:

  • Depicted alleged denial of rest, leave, and medical facilities to loco running staff.
  • Showed a sick Loco Pilot being denied sick leave by a Railway doctor.
  • Was uploaded on YouTube and viewed by 17,000+ viewers with 183 comments.
  • Allegedly instigated staff to break rules, leading to 140+ staff refusing duty after eligible rest periods.

• Transfer Order (Annexure-A1):

  • Issued on 25.06.2024 by the 5th respondent (Senior Divisional Personnel Officer).
  • Applicants were relieved on 26.06.2024 and directed to join Villupuram depot in Tiruchirappalli Division.
  • The order was justified on administrative grounds, citing the need to prevent further disruption.

Procedural History

• 30.03.2024: Video ‘Siren’ uploaded on YouTube.
• 01.06.2024: Alleged rule-breaking by staff begins, leading to crew link breakages and freight train delays.
• 13.06.2024: 6th respondent (Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer) proposes inter-divisional transfer of the applicants.
• 24.06.2024: Proposal forwarded to 2nd respondent (Principal Chief Personnel Officer) for approval.
• 25.06.2024: Annexure-A1 order issued, transferring applicants to Villupuram.
• 26.06.2024: Applicants relieved from Ernakulam Junction and directed to join Tiruchirappalli Division.
• 26.06.2024: Applicants file Original Applications (O.A. 346-348/2024) before CAT, Ernakulam.
• 26.06.2024: Interim order passed by CAT directing status quo.
• 17.07.2024: CAT directs re-engagement of applicants in Ernakulam, holding they were not actually relieved.
• 16.10.2025: Hon’ble High Court dismisses respondents’ challenge to CAT’s interim order.
• 20.05.2026: Final hearing of the O.As before CAT.
• 22.05.2026: Common order passed, quashing Annexure-A1 and allowing the O.As.

The Parties' Positions

For the Applicants

• Annexure-A1 is arbitrary, discriminatory, and ultra vires:
  • Violates Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC).
  • Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (equality and non-discrimination).
  • No exigency of service warranted the transfer; 88 vacancies existed in Trivandrum Division.
  • Competent authority issue: The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the order; only the General Manager has such power.
• Transfer is punitive:
  • Issued as penalty for acting in the video, which was intended to highlight staff grievances.
  • No disciplinary proceedings initiated, making the transfer a malafide exercise of power.
• Humanitarian grounds (O.A. 346/2024):
  • Applicant’s son suffers from 80% permanent disability; transfer would disrupt his care.
  • Relied on Section 20(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and DoPT/Railway Board instructions granting immunity from transfer for caregivers of disabled dependents.
• Precedents relied upon:
  • Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [(2009) 2 SCC 592]: Transfer in lieu of punishment is illegal.
  • Gopinathan M and another v. State of Kerala and others [2014 (4) KLT 285].
  • CAT’s own order in O.A. 51/2023 dated 01.08.2023.
  • High Court judgment in WP(C) 37736/2025 dated 16.10.2025.

For the Respondents

• Annexure-A1 issued on administrative grounds:
  • Public interest required transfer to prevent further disruption.
  • Video instigated staff to break rules, leading to crew link breakages and freight train delays.
  • 140+ staff refused duty after eligible rest periods, causing operational inconvenience.
• No violation of statutory rules:
  • Paras 226 and 227 of IREC empower the General Manager to transfer Group C/D employees, and this power was delegated as per the Model Schedule of Powers (2018).
  • No vested right to work in a particular station; transfer is an incident of service.
• Video violated Conduct Rules:
  • Applicants acted in the video without permission, used Railway property (locomotive cab) for shooting, and instigated staff to break rules.
  • Adverse criticism of Government policy/action violates Railway Services (Conduct) Rules.
• No malafides:
  • Transfer was not vindictive; applicants were already relieved on 26.06.2024.
  • 66 vacancies existed in Tiruchirappalli Division, justifying the transfer.
• Precedents relied upon:
  • State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal [2001 KHC 1195].
  • Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 532].
  • State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402].
  • Union of India and others v. Sri Janardhan Debanath and another [(2004) 4 SCC 245].

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Tribunal was: Whether a transfer order issued on administrative grounds, but motivated by punitive considerations for alleged misconduct, is legally valid under the Indian Railway Establishment Code and constitutional principles?

Subsidiary issues included:

1. Whether the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer had the jurisdiction to issue the transfer order under Rule 226 of IREC.
2. Whether the transfer violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by being arbitrary and discriminatory.
3. Whether the failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings rendered the transfer order illegal and malafide.
4. Whether humanitarian grounds (e.g., caregiving for a disabled child) could override administrative exigency.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicants

• Transfer is punitive: Annexure-A1 was issued as a penalty for acting in the video, not for administrative exigency.
• No exigency of service: 88 vacancies existed in Trivandrum Division; transfer was unnecessary.
• Incompetent authority: The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer lacked jurisdiction; only the General Manager could issue such orders.
• Malafide exercise of power: The respondents deliberately avoided disciplinary proceedings to punish the applicants through transfer.
• Humanitarian grounds: The applicant in O.A. 346/2024 is the primary caregiver for a severely disabled child; transfer would disrupt his care.
• Precedents: Relied on Somesh Tiwari to argue that transfer in lieu of punishment is illegal.

For the Respondents

• Administrative grounds: Transfer was necessary in public interest to prevent further disruption caused by the video.
• No punitive intent: The order was not vindictive; applicants were already relieved on 26.06.2024.
• Jurisdiction: The General Manager’s power under Rule 226 of IREC was delegated to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer as per the Model Schedule of Powers (2018).
• No vested right: Applicants had no legal right to continue in Ernakulam; transfer is an incident of service.
• Conduct Rules violation: Applicants violated Railway Services (Conduct) Rules by acting in the video without permission and instigating staff to break rules.
• Operational necessity: 66 vacancies existed in Tiruchirappalli Division, justifying the transfer.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal conducted a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing transfer orders and the factual matrix of the case:

1. Transfer as an Incident of Service vs. Punitive Transfer:

   • The Tribunal acknowledged that transfer is an incident of service and employees have no vested right to work in a particular station.
   • However, it relied on Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [(2009) 2 SCC 592], which held that transfer in lieu of punishment is illegal.
   • The Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari distinguished between administrative exigency and punitive transfers, holding that the latter are malafide and liable to be set aside.

2. Motive Behind the Transfer:

   • The Tribunal found that the real motive behind Annexure-A1 was punitive, not administrative.
   • The proposal for transfer (Annexure-R1) explicitly cited the applicants’ participation in the video and their failure to delete it from YouTube as reasons.
   • The respondents admitted that the video instigated staff to break rules, leading to operational disruptions.
   • Despite this, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated, which the Tribunal held was improper and malafide.

3. Jurisdiction of the Issuing Authority:

   • The Tribunal examined Rule 226 of IREC, which empowers the General Manager to transfer Group C/D employees.
   • The Model Schedule of Powers (2018) allowed delegation of this power to lower authorities, including the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer.
   • The transfer order was approved by the Principal Chief Personnel Officer and Principal Chief Operations Manager, complying with Rule 227 of IREC.
   • Thus, the Tribunal rejected the contention that the order was issued by an incompetent authority.

4. Malafide Exercise of Power:

   • The Tribunal held that transferring employees without initiating disciplinary proceedings was a malafide exercise of power.
   • It noted that the respondents had not taken any action against the applicants despite clear violations of Conduct Rules.
   • The Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari had held that transfer based on irrelevant grounds (e.g., anonymous complaints) is malafide.
   • Here, the grounds for transfer (acting in the video) were not administrative but punitive, rendering the order illegal.

5. Humanitarian Considerations (O.A. 346/2024):

   • The Tribunal gave sympathetic consideration to the applicant in O.A. 346/2024, whose son suffers from 80% permanent disability.
   • While there was no explicit averment that he was the primary caregiver, the Tribunal assumed his role in the child’s care.
   • It held that transferring a caregiver of a severely disabled child without compelling administrative grounds was unjust and inhumane.

6. Vindictive Attitude of Respondents:

   • The Tribunal noted the respondents’ vindictive attitude, including:
     • Claiming applicants were already relieved despite no actual relieving.
     • Delaying re-engagement, salary, and allowances despite CAT’s interim orders.
     • Forcing applicants to approach the Tribunal multiple times for compliance.
   • These actions reinforced the malafide nature of the transfer order.

"It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."

• Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [(2009) 2 SCC 592]

The Verdict

The Tribunal allowed all three Original Applications (O.A. 346-348/2024) and quashed Annexure-A1 (the transfer order dated 25.06.2024). The key holdings and directions are:

1. Annexure-A1 is illegal and malafide: The transfer order was issued in lieu of disciplinary proceedings, rendering it vitiated by malafides.
2. No costs awarded: The Tribunal did not award costs to the applicants.
3. Applicants to continue in Trivandrum Division: The respondents were directed to treat the applicants as if Annexure-A1 had not been issued, allowing them to continue their service in Ernakulam Junction.
4. No disciplinary action initiated: The Tribunal noted that no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the applicants, despite clear violations of Conduct Rules.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Transfer Cannot Substitute Disciplinary Proceedings

• Employers cannot use transfer orders as a shortcut for punishment.
• If an employee is accused of misconduct, the proper course is to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the applicable service rules.
• Transfer in lieu of punishment is illegal and liable to be set aside, as held in Somesh Tiwari.
• Practitioners should argue:
  • That the real motive behind a transfer order is punitive, not administrative.
  • That the failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings renders the transfer malafide.

Humanitarian Grounds Can Override Administrative Exigency

• Caregivers of disabled dependents may seek immunity from transfer under:
  • Section 20(5) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
  • DoPT/Railway Board instructions granting such immunity.
• Tribunals/Courts may give sympathetic consideration to cases involving severely disabled dependents, even if the employee is not the primary caregiver.
• Practitioners should:
  • Produce medical certificates (e.g., Annexure-A2) proving disability.
  • Highlight the disruption caused by transfer to the care of the dependent.
  • Rely on Office Memoranda (e.g., Annexures-A3 to A7) granting immunity.

Malafide Exercise of Power: Key Indicators

• Vindictive actions by the employer (e.g., delaying compliance with court orders) can strengthen claims of malafides.
• Lack of administrative necessity (e.g., vacancies at the original station) can undermine the employer’s justification.
• Practitioners should:
  • Scrutinize the employer’s conduct for signs of malafides (e.g., delays, non-compliance).
  • Compare vacancy positions at the original and transferred stations.
  • Argue that the transfer was motivated by extraneous factors (e.g., punitive intent).