Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010288192025 2026:GAU-AS:8490 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/890/2026 1: THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, RAIL BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2: THE CHAIRPERSON CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER RAILWAY BOARD INDIAN RAILWAY NEW DELHI- 110001. 3: THE N. F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION) MALIGAON GUWAHATI- 11. 4: THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY (CONSTRUCTION) MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 VERSUS HEM CHANDRA BORAH DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (PLANNING), N. F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI- 11, R/O.- FLAT NO. 2A, NANIKANTA HERITAGE BISHNU RABHA PATH, R. G. BARUWA ROAD, GUWAHATI- 24. For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. R. Devi, Central Government Counsel. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Phookan, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Khound, Advocate for sole respondent. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 15.06.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mrs. R. Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners/Union of India and three others and Mr. R.B. Page No.# 2/5 Phookan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Khound, learned Advocate for the sole respondent. 2. By the impugned judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred as the “Tribunal”) in Original Application No.152/2022 and Original Application No.85/2023, the transfer of the respondent from Guwahati to a different Zone at Hajipur has been set aside. 3. The respondent is a member of the Indian Railway Engineering Service, who was made accused in a CBI case involving allegations of conspiracy, bribery and offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent had been arrested but was released on bail. While he had been facing criminal case, he was placed under suspension, which also was revoked after some time. However, the respondent was given a non-sensitive posting in the Planning Department at N.F. Railway Headquarters in Maligaon, Guwahati. 4. According to the petitioners, this was done in accordance with the Railway Vigilance Rules, which provide that officers under the CBI investigation ought not to be kept on sensitive positions as they would be in a position to influence the works or contracts. 5. It further appears from the records that the Chief Vigilance Officer of N.F. Railway sent an advisory to the Railway Administration that the respondent ought not to be allowed to continue on any post whatsoever in the N.F. Railway Zone at all and that he should be transferred to a distant Railway Zone and also be kept on a non-sensitive post. Page No.# 3/5 6. Mrs. R. Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this is a standard advice in Indian Railways for an officer who has been made an accused in a corruption case. The purpose is not punitive but only for the reason of protecting the integrity of the system. It can be likened to a preventive administrative step. 7. Based on such an advisory, the Railway Board permitted the respondent to be transferred to a different Zone. The permission of the Railway Board was necessary because of inter-zonal transfer of a Group- A officer. The Railway Board had actually passed the transfer order on 16.03.2022, which order was based on an assessment of the entire set of facts, including the Vigilance Report, the administrative needs, etc. 8. The respondent was transferred to East Central Railways at Hajipur. The N.F. Railway had promptly issued the relieving order also for him to join at the new place. 9. The records reveal that the respondent challenged this transfer order before the Tribunal claiming that it violated the Indian Railways Comprehensive Transfer Policy, 2015 giving a minimum tenure to an employee on a post. The contention of the respondent before the Tribunal was that this inter-zonal transfer was a second transfer on the same grounds, which was done way too quickly and the same has caused huge hardships to him. 10. The Tribunal, agreeing with the contention of the respondent, set aside the transfer order as also the relieving order on the ground that the employer/ Railways could not have transferred the respondent within Page No.# 4/5 such a short span of time only for the reason of pendency of the CBI case, especially, when it was against the Transfer Policy of the Railway employees. 11. Mrs. R. Devi, learned Advocate, while assailing the afore- noted order passed by the Tribunal, submitted that transfer is an incidence of service and in this instance, such inter-zonal transfer was in consonance with the Standard Policy of Railways in cases of such officers who were under CBI scanner for preventing the integrity of the system. It was further argued that the Tribunal went beyond its remit in interfering with such transfer, which was made on pure administrative and vigilance grounds and there was nothing on record to indicate any mala fides. The Transfer Policy of giving a minimum tenure to an employee had to be seen in the correct perspective, especially, in cases when the employer was of the view that allowing the respondent to remain anywhere in the same Zone where he had been facing criminal prosecution, would not have been good for the system. The inter-zonal transfer of the respondent only serves the administrative needs. It has also been pointed out by Mrs. Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners that because of the interim order passed by the Tribunal before disposal of the Original Applications, the respondent remained at Maligaon for more than the regular tenure of an officer at a Station. 12. Seen in this perspective, we find that the order passed by the Tribunal was absolutely unjustified and is fit to be quashed. Page No.# 5/5 13. We have also taken note of the arguments advanced by Mr. Phookan, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent that the vigilance advisory was not for any particular Zone, which choice was never indicated and that the respondent had already been placed on a non- sensitive post at Maligaon. It was not because of any deliberate attempt made by the respondent that he remained at the post at Maligaon because of the pendency of the present litigation. 14. Be that as it may, since the primary ground for interference by the Tribunal with respect to the transfer of the respondent to a different Zone was the breach of the Transfer Policy giving very small tenure to the respondent, which ground now stands erased because of the respondent having stayed at that place of posting for more than the normal tenure, we have chosen to set aside the order on more than one ground, namely, the order being bad in law and the other being that the order has lost its force. 15. We order accordingly. 16. The composite judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.152/2022 and Original Application No.85/2023 is set aside. This writ petition is allowed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant