Hon. Dr. Satish Chandra, J.
Heard Shri A.R. Masoodi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Kumar appears for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, by which it has refused to interfere with the inter zonal railway transfer order of the petitioners.
The Railway Board by its letter dated 31.7.2009 to the General Manager (P), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, informed the decision of the Ministry of Railway to transfer Shri J.P. Suman, CTTI/Raid/Gonda, Lucknow Division North Eastern Railway and Shri Jakir Ali, TTE/MAILANI/ Lucknow Division North Eastern Railway to Trivendrum Division of Southern Railway, and Voiltare Division, East Coastal Railway, respectively. The subject of the letter indicates that the transfers have made on account of leakage of question papers of written examination of RRB Ajmer and RRB Allahabad. The orders were communicated to the petitioner by Div. Railway Manager (Personnel) Lucknow.
The claimantrespondents challenged the transfer order as violative of statutory rules, arbitrary in nature and without jurisdiction. It was submitted that the transfers have been made on the charge of corruption, without holding the departmental enquiry. Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I provides for transfers but that such transfers can only be made within the Division or InterDivision within the zone. The petitioner could not have been transferred from Gorakhpur in North Eastern Railway to Trivendrum in Southern Railway and East Coastal Railways, down south without following the Rules, which do not provide for any 2 centralised service.
It is submitted by Shri Masoodi, relying upon the General Manager, Commanding in Chief & Anr. Vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav & Ors., (1988) 2 SCC 351 that each railway is an autonomous body and that until and unless there is centralised service, the transfer from one railway to another is not permitted. He would further submit that after enforcement of the (The) Railway Act, 1989 such transfers are not permitted. Shri Masoodi submits that the petitioners were not involved in the leakage of question papers and have no role to play in it. They have been unnecessarily victimised without holding a departmental enquiry against him.
Learned counsel appearing for railway would submit that the fact whether the petitioner was involved in the leakage of question papers or not, was neither pleaded nor raised before the Tribunal. The transfer order was challenged only on the ground of jurisdiction of the General Manager of North Eastern Railway to transfer the petitioner outside the zone.
Section 3 of (The) Railway Act, 1989 provides as follows: "3. Zonal Railways (1) The Central Government may, for the purpose of the efficient administration of the Government railways, by notification, constitute such railways into as many Zonal Railways as it may deem fit and specify in such notification the name and headquarters of such Zonal Railways and the areas in respect of which they shall exercise jurisdiction.
(2) The Zonal Railway existing immediately before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be Zonal Railways constituted under subsection (1).
(3) The Central Government may, by notification, declare any unit of the railways engaged in research, development, designing, construction or production of rolling stock, its parts or other equipment used on a railway, to be a Zonal Railway.
(4) The Central Government may, by notification, abolish any Zonal Railway or constitute any new Zonal Railway out of any existing Zonal Railway of Zonal Railways, change the name or headquarters of any Zonal Railway or determine the areas in respect of which a Zonal Railway shall exercise jurisdiction." Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.I provides 3 for transfer. Rules read: "226 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 of railway or railway establishment including a project in or out of India. In regard to Group 'D' railway servants, the power of the President under this rule in respect of transfer, within India, may be exercised by the General Manager or by a lower authority to whom the power may be redelegated."
The Tribunal held that there is distinction between 'administrative grounds' and 'exigency of service'. Where transparency of service is endangered in a serious matter of leakage of question paper, it was open to railway to transfer an employee from one railway to another railway without holding departmental enquiry. It was not necessary for railway to hold departmental enquiry, if Railway Board was satisfied that transfer, in the exigency of service, was necessary.
Shri Masoodi has also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ganesh Din Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/3120/2006 decided on 15.9.2006 in Writ Petition (C) No.6082 of 2005, in which interdivisional transfer was involved. The Delhi High Court after considering the issue of jurisdiction as well as violation of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India held that where the objective is to root out corruption of the persons, who are in public contact, different treatment is justified, if a reasonable classification is made and there is intelligible difference. The transfer is an exigency of service and unless the transfer is vitiated by malafides or by extraneous considerations, the Courts are loathe to interfere. The Railway Board's Circular letters dated 30.10.1998 and 2.11.1998 permits inter divisional transfers, if malpractices of staff in mas contact areas is detected.
In the present case, the transfer orders have been passed by the Railway Board. The General Manager, North Eastern Railway has only 4 communicated the orders. The convenience for which the railway has been divided into different zones does not prohibit the Railway Board from transferring the railway employee from one railway to another. The petitioner has not challenged the reasons for transfer either in the claim petition or in this writ petition. There is no denial to the reasons that they were involved in the leakage of question papers. He is an employee of the railways and could be transferred by the Railway Board from one zone to another. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal.
Both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Dt.01.02.2010 SP/