JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia. J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal for his transfer order, for his posting from Nagaur to Muradabad vide order dated 17.3.1999. The transfer was sought to be cancelled firstly on the medical ground on account of illness of the petitioner’s wife and by alleging that the order is punitive and malafide and has been made in colourable exercise of power in order to accommodate Nahar Singh at Nagaur in place of petitioner. All these grounds did not find favour with the Tribunal and the Original Application was dismissed by the impugned order.
2. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is malafide in as much as his transfer has been made to make room for Nahar Singh and that has turned out to be true because after the transfer of petitioner from Nagaur to Muradabad, Nahar Singh has been transferred at Nagaur.
3. This contention fails to impress us in as much as the petitioner has been transferred alongwith his post and nobody has been or could otherwise have been accommodated in his place. Mr. Nahar Singh has admittedly not been placed on the post held by the petitioner by transferring said Nahar Singh vice him. He has been brought to Nagour on some other post. If somebody could be posted at Nagour without the existence of the post which was held by the petitioner, it could very well have been done even without transferring the petitioner from Nagaur. Therefore in our opinion, there is no linkage between the appointment of Nahar Singh at Nagaur with the transfer of the petitioner from Nagaur to Muradabad.
4. Apart from that there is no allegation in the O.A. suggesting any personal ill-will or disposal towards the petitioner by any of the officers connected with the exercise of the power. In the absence of any Specific allegation about malafide there is no room to consider the question of transfer being malafide.
5. Once authority to make transfer is accepted and the ground in support of colourable exercise of that power viz. to accommodate another person fails because demonstrably there is no linkage between two transfers, further inquiry into the reasons and propriety of transfer of Nahar Singh to Nagaur is outside the perview of the inquiry in this petition. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified to look into the case of Nahar Singh’s transfer at Nagaur for the present purpose.
6. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order is punitive in as much as before the petitioner was transferred, there has been a decoy to trap the petitioner on the ground of charges orruption and as a result of which he was also put under suspension but no charge sheet was served and the suspension order was revoked. Therefore in this background, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order must be treated to be punitive by way of punishment and colourable exercise of power not in exigencies of administration. In their reply to the Original Application the facts about the vigilance checkig has not been denied, it has also been stated in the reply that the transfer of the petitioner from Nagaur to Muradabad division was not made by respondent No. 7 Smt. Tripi Guha Divisional Commercial Manager but was made on the direction of the Chief Commercial Manager (Northern Railway) Jodhpur and General Manager personally has issued the transfer order of 13 employees and the applicant is only one of them. It may further be noticed that in reply the respondents have revealed that in fact petitioner has himself requested for change of head quarter from Nagaur to Jodhpur which was not considered proper because of the vigilance checking on 28.8.1998, it has been rejected. In these circumstances in view of the vigilance report at best may have furnished the motive for transferring the petitioner from the place of present working giving cause to administrative anxiety but was not the foundation of the order. It cannot be said that the transfer order made by the Chief Commercial Manager was not on administrative exigencies but was for any other purpose simply because transfer has been made alongwith post. Merely because some vigilance complaints are there, it does not make the order of transfer punitive. Law is settled that there is a distinction between motive and basis for an order. It is the foundation for the order that may make the order punitive but not the motive.
7. Thus on both the contention viz., of malafides as well as colourable exercise of the power for punishing the petitioner in the garb of administrative exigencies fail. The order of transfer cannot be interferred with by judicial review.
8. So far as third contention is concerned it is for the respondents to have a sympathetic consideration of the situation and to grant any relief if deemed proper in the circumstances of the case for which the petitioner may make appropriate representation before the competent officer.
9. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.