Gopal v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated August 25, 20II passed in Original Application No.3008/2011, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application in limine. The petitioner had challenged an order dated June 06, 20lI rejecting his request to cancel the inter-divisional transfer from Moradabad Division to Delhi Division.

2. Rule DB was issued on May 0I,2013. The ex parte interim order dated October 17,20L[1] was confirmed.

3. The only issued urged on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal a w.P.(c) 7238/2011 2013:DHC:7484-DB ( was that the transfer order should be set aside since he has been issued a charge-sheet and the inquiry is going on and that the petitioner cannot effectively defend himself if he is transferred to Delhi division. In the writ petition the petitioner relied upon a circular dated March 25,1967.

4. Ms.Geetanjali Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the only ground urged by the petitioner challenging the transfer order does not sustain today, inasmuch as the inquiry proceedings before the Inquiry Officer have been completed and the petitioner has submitted his representation against the inquiry report.

5. We note that Rule 226 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 stipulates as under: "Transfers.- Ordinarily, a railway servant shall be employed throughout his service on the railway or railway establishment to which he is posted on first appointment and shall have no claim as of right for transfer to another railway or another establishment. In the exigencies of service, however, it shall be open to the President to transfer the railway servant to any other department or railway or railway establishment including a project in or out of India. In regard to Group C and Group D railway servants, the power of the President under this rule in respect of transferr.within India, may be exercised by the General Manager or by a lower authority to whom the power may be re-delegated."

6. According to learned counsel for the respondent, in terms of Rule 226, the respondents are within their right to transfer the petitioner to another division. She would further submit the reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner, as is seen from the order of this Court dated October 17,2011, on circular dated March 25, 1967, does not stipulate that during the \/ \Jt w.P.(q 7x8/201I th pendency of the charge-sheet, non-gazetted staff shall not be transferred from one division to another division. The usage of the word 'normally' vests discretion in the competent authority to consider transfening a staff keeping in view the facts of a given case.

7. We are of the view that we need not go into the issue arising out of Rule 226 and for that matter circular dated March 25,1967 since the inquiry proceedings before the Inquiry Officer have culminated. The inquiry report has been given to the petitioner and the petitioner has made a representation t \... against the same'

8. For the reasons stated by the Tribunal and the additional reason that the inquiry proceedings are over, we dismiss the writ petition.

9. No costs. I 1r OCTOBER 23' 2013/km -I-Y-;.-s-:Fg/ PRADEEP NAIS#O,O.,,. l\)^[o

V. KAMES\dh{RAO, J.