IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22993 of 2008(S)
1. SOBHA MARY ALEXANER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA
... Respondent
2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
4. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL M ANAGER (PS)
5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
6. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER
7. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :04/08/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 22993 OF 2008-S
-----------------------------------------
Dated 4th August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.102/2008 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondents
herein were the respondents in that O.A. The petitioner, who was a
Commercial Clerk in the Southern Railways working at Kottayam
under the Thiruvananthapuram Division, was facing disciplinary
proceedings, involving grave misconduct. Initially, she was suspended
from service. Later, she was reinstated and thereafter transferred out,
by Annexure-A1 order, to Palakkad, which is in Palakkad Division.
The petitioner attacked the said order before the CAT on various
grounds. The main ground canvassed was the violation of Annexure-
A5 Rule. It says that a Group C employee facing disciplinary
proceedings shall not, normally, be transferred from one
WPC 22993/2008 2
Railway/Division to another Railway/Division before the finalisation
of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner also contended that her
seniority will be affected by the impugned transfer. The respondents
resisted the application, relying on Annexure-R1 order, which
provided that persons facing charges for grave misconduct, like the
petitioner, can be transferred out from the parent division. The
Tribunal considered the rival contentions and dismissed the O.A. In
this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged not only Ext.P5 final
order of the CAT, but also Annexure-R1 order of the Railways.
2. The learned senior counsel Mr.N.N.Sugunapalan, who
appeared for the petitioner, submitted that Annexure-A5 is a statutory
Rule. So, Annexure-R1 cannot override the same. Secondly, it is
submitted that if the petitioner is transferred, her seniority will be
affected. She may become junior to the junior-most in her cadre.
3. Annexure-A5 only says that normally, an employee facing
disciplinary proceedings may not be transferred out to another
Railway/Division. It means that the competent authority has discretion
in that matter. The Railways have issued Annexure-R1 order, pointing
WPC 22993/2008 3
out how that discretion should be exercised. We find that there is
nothing wrong with the said order. It only gives certain guidelines for
the competent authority as to how the discretion under Annexure-A5
should be exercised, while transferring employees, who are facing
disciplinary action. The second ground regarding loss of seniority is,
plainly, untenable. A close reading of the impugned order of the CAT
would show that the said point was not canvassed before the Tribunal.
Obviously, it was not canvassed, as it was untenable. An incumbent,
who is transferred out, in exigencies of service, to another division,
will not lose his seniority.
In the result, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned
order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
Nm/