Transfer of government employees is an incident of service : No interference, unless violates statutory provisions
Meghalaya High Court Upholds Transfer of CRPF Commandant Amid Preliminary Enquiry. Court Confirms Transfer as Administrative Necessity, Dismisses Allegations of Punitive Action and Mala Fide
The Meghalaya High Court, in a judgment delivered on October 9, 2025, upheld the transfer of Shri Sunil Kumar Savita, Commandant of the 67 BN CRPF, to the Recruits Training Centre in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The Division Bench, comprising Justices W. Diengdoh and B. Bhattacharjee, dismissed the appeal filed by Savita, who challenged his transfer before completing his tenure, alleging it to be punitive and arbitrary.
The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate K. Paul, contended that the transfer order was a result of an inter-personal conflict with his subordinate, the 2nd In Command, which led to a preliminary inquiry. He argued that the transfer was punitive in nature and violated his service rights, as it was not based on administrative exigencies but rather as a form of punishment without due process.
The court, however, found that the transfer was an administrative decision made to ensure a fair preliminary inquiry into the alleged conflict. The judges noted that transfer is a routine incident of service and does not confer a right to a particular posting unless mala fides or statutory violations are evident. The court emphasized that transfer orders made in public interest and administrative exigencies cannot be interfered with unless they adversely affect official status or are issued with malicious intent.
The judgment cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court ruling in the case of "State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal," which underscored that judicial review in transfer matters is limited to instances of mala fide or statutory violations. The court reiterated that the appellant's transfer was neither harsh nor punitive, as there was no reduction in rank or pay.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, stating that the Single Judge had rightly rejected the writ petition challenging the transfer. The court further clarified that no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the appellant, and the preliminary inquiry necessitated his transfer to ensure an impartial investigation.
The judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the principle that transfer is an inherent aspect of service, especially within government establishments, and highlights the limited scope of judicial intervention in such administrative decisions.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of government employees is an incident of service and cannot be interfered with unless it is vitiated by mala fides, violates statutory provisions, or adversely affects official status.
Statutory provision(s): Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
Shri. Sunil Kumar Savita v. Union of India, (Meghalaya)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2792064
