2026:UHC:4212 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1386/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ishwari Dutt Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for Uttarakhand Transport Corporation through video conferencing. 2. Petitioner is serving as Station Incharge. He was transferred from Tanakpur Depot to Kathgodam Depot on administrative ground vide order dated 08.04.2026, passed by General Manager (Personnel), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Dehradun. 3. Petitioner has challenged said transfer on the ground that he has been transferred to Kathgodam Depot by way of punishment. He relies on the order passed by General Manager (Personnel), Headquarter on 07.04.2026 as Disciplinary Authority, wherein it is observed that reply given by petitioner to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory and petitioner was warned to be careful in nature, and it was further directed that he should be transferred to some other Depot. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that no one can be transferred from one Depot to another by way of punishment, as transfer is not one of the penalties enumerated in the Discipline and Appeal Rules applicable to the employees of Transport Corporation. 2026:UHC:4212 5. It is submitted that, had petitioner been transferred in public interest or for administrative exigency, then petitioner would not have any grievance; however, in the present case there is a stipulation made in transfer order that he is being transferred on administrative ground which reflects upon his work and conduct and his yeoman service to the Corporation is discredited without any valid reason. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner is now at the verge of retirement. 6. It is pointed out that petitioner is due to retire in the month of February, 2027 and there are less than nine months remaining. It is further contended that there is long standing policy that employee of a statutory Corporation cannot be transferred at the fag-end of his service career and he is allowed to serve at a place of his choice, so that he may make arrangements for his post-retirement settlement. 7. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Transport Corporation supports the transfer order by contending that there was complaint against petitioner that he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty on three occasions and show cause notice was given to him; since petitioner’s reply to the notice was not found satisfactory, therefore while issuing warning, the Disciplinary Authority ordered for petitioner’s transfer to some other Depot. Thus, he submits that 2026:UHC:4212 petitioner’s transfer is made in terms of order passed by Disciplinary Authority. He, however, concedes that in the Disciple and Appeal Rules, applicable to the employees of the Corporation, transfer is not one of the penalty which can be imposed for misconduct. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Since transfer is not one of the punishments which can be imposed upon employees of Transport Corporation for dereliction of duties or misconduct, therefore the Disciplinary Authority erred in directing the competent authority to transfer the petitioner out of the Depot, where he was serving. The competent authority was also not justified in acting on the instruction of the Disciplinary Authority. The impugned transfer order is therefore legally unsustainable. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order dated 08.04.2026, passed by General Manager (Personnel), Dehradun, is hereby quashed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 27.05.2026 Mahinder/