Introduction:

In the matter of Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 8 Others [WRIT – A No. – 16814 of 2024], the Allahabad High Court quashed a transfer order issued by Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, terming it malicious and a misuse of power. Justice J.J. Munir held that transfer orders cannot be used as a substitute for lawful punishment under an employer’s disciplinary jurisdiction. The petitioner, an employee of U.P. Power Corporation Limited since 2008, was transferred multiple times within a short span, with the final transfer allegedly based on complaints against him. The Court ruled this transfer unlawful, emphasizing that transfers should not be punitive and must be based on legitimate administrative exigencies.

Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the impugned transfer order to the Electricity Distribution Sub-Division-City, Pratapgarh, was arbitrary and punitive. He highlighted that he had been transferred multiple times within a short span despite his satisfactory service. The petitioner contended that the transfer order was passed immediately after the submission of an inquiry report, which unfairly labelled him insubordinate. He further submitted that the transfer caused undue hardship and was contrary to his earlier approved posting near Prayagraj, where his wife worked as a government lecturer.

The respondents, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, justified the transfer, arguing that it was an administrative decision and not punitive. They stated that the petitioner’s new posting was equidistant from his residence, ensuring no hardship. The respondents also cited complaints against the petitioner, asserting that his behaviour was unprofessional and disrespectful, necessitating improvement. They claimed the transfer was an administrative requirement and not a penalty.

Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court carefully scrutinized the facts and circumstances surrounding the transfer order. Justice J.J. Munir observed that while administrative exigencies could justify transfers, they must not be a guise for punishment. The Court noted that the inquiry report, which formed the basis of the transfer, was submitted on the same day the impugned order was passed. Such haste suggested that the transfer was a reactionary measure rather than a genuine administrative decision.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and Others, the Court reiterated that transfers motivated by irrelevant or punitive grounds amount to malice in law. The Court emphasized that disciplinary action must follow due process and cannot be substituted by a transfer order. Justice Munir highlighted that complaints against the petitioner could have been addressed through a disciplinary mechanism rather than using transfer as a punitive measure.

The Court further observed that the petitioner’s failure to respond to the inquiry committee’s allegations was treated as insubordination, leading to adverse remarks. However, such allegations were insufficient grounds for issuing a transfer order, especially when no formal disciplinary action was initiated. The Court held that the respondents misused their authority by treating the transfer as a penalty for alleged misconduct.

The Court concluded that the transfer order was unlawful, arbitrary, and a clear instance of malice in law. It directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to rejoin his previous station in Prayagraj. The writ petition was allowed, and the transfer order was quashed.