Virender Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

V. Ajay Kumar, J

The applicant, an Office Superintendent and working at Bahadurgarh under the respondents-Northern Railway, filed the OA, questioning the Annexure A-1 transfer order dated 28.12.2018 whereunder he was transferred and posted as Office Superintendent under SSE/P.Way/TKD under ADEN/TKD, on administrative ground in the same grade and capacity.

Heard Shri M.S. Saini, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kant Sharma, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents on receipt of advance notice.

Shri M.S. Saini, the learned counsel for the applicant, raised various grounds in support of the challenge to the transfer order of the applicant, however, he admitted that the applicant has not made any representation to the authorities against the impugned transfer order. It was also admitted that the person who was posted in place of applicant has already joined.

In S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 583, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"6. We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first place, a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed. Apart therefrom, if the appellant really had some genuine difficulty in reporting for work at Tezpur, he could have reported for duty at Amritsar where he was so posted. We too decline to believe the story of his remaining sick. Assuming there was some sickness, we are not satisfied that it prevented him from joining duty either at Tezpur or at Amritsar. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Ram Manohar , Lohia Hospital proves this point. In the circumstances, we too are of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of the misconduct of unauthorisedly«' remaining absent from duty".

In the present case, the applicant has not made even a representation to the authorities, before approaching this Tribunal.

Hence, in the circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case, by giving liberty to the applicant to make an appropriate representation ventilating his grievance to the respondents within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the said representation from the applicant, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks therefrom. The joining of the applicant at the new place, in the meanwhile, is without prejudice to his contentions in the representation to be made. No order as to costs.