SRI K. R. K v. PRASAD

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari by calling for the order dated 25.09.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 94O ot 2O25 and the Office Order No. E(O)lll-2025/TR/462 dated 12.09.2025 transferring the petitioner from South Central Railway, Secunderabad to West Central Railway along with any other consequential orders including Office Order dated 16.09.2025, and quash and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2025 along with the Office Order No. E(O)lll.2O25lTRl462 dated 12.09.2025 and direct the respondent Railways to continue the pe'titioner in South Central Railway, Secunderabad with all consequential benefits. Prayer is amended as per Court Order dated 13.11.2025 vide l.A.No.4 of 2025 in W.P.No.30288 of 2025. lA NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Office Order No. E(O)lll-20251TR1462 dated 12.09.2025 along with any other consequential orders including Office Order dated 16.09.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. R. K. V. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KIIMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No-3O288 of 2o25. ORDER: Mr. K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears for the respondents.

2. Petitioner has assailed the interim order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal') in O.A.No.940 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025 whereby his prayer for stay of the trarrsfer order dated L2.O9.2O25 and the relieving order dated

16.09.2025 has been rejected. The original application rs pending. ,,| 1/i

3. Petitioner remained in suspension for about one and a half years in his earlier place of posting i.e., South Central t / Railway on account of his arrest in a CBI case with effect from O5.O7.2O24. Upon revocation of his suspension uide order dated O9.O9.22O5, the petitioner was transferred to West Central Railway. The CBI case is pending before learned Court 2 1 jf. of the Spe:cial Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool. The learned Tribunal rr:fused to grant stay of the transfer also taking into note that the successor has already taken charge and any stay of the imptrgned order would amount to stay of the revocation of the suspension. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

5. Petitioner has inter alia taken the grounds of his illness and also the difficulty in attending to the criminal case at the learned Courrt of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool, from his transferred place in West Central Railway due to his aggravated Lrealth condition. Medical documents in the form of MRI and certificate dated 01.O7.2025, etc., have been annexed in support o1'the contention.

6. On the part of the respondent-Railways, it is submitted that the transfer has been made in consonance with the Comprehensive Transfer Policy dated 31.08.2015 paragraph (xiii) thereof, which provides for transfer in administrative exigences. since petitioner is facing a cBI case concerning his \ \ J last place of posting in south central Railway at Hyderabad, the competent authority has, upon revocation of his suspension, transferred him to West Central Railway in administrative exigency. Since his successor has also joined after his relieving on 16.09.2025, the learned Tribunal rightly refused to grant any stay of the interim order of transfer and relieving. The learned Tribunal is in seisin of the original application wherein the transfer of order is under challenge. The matter be left upon for the learned rribunal to take a decision on the main grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.

7. on consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and the materials placed on record referred to hereinabove, we do not find any error in the impugned order refusing to stay the transfer and relieving of the petitioner dated 12.09.2025 and

16.09.2025 respectively, more so, for the reason that the petitioner has not only been relieved from his duties, but his successor has also joined and there is a criminal case pending within the jurisdiction of the South central Railway relating to the petitioner's discharge of duties. Let it be made clear that the learned Tribunal would. consid.er the original application I 4 without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. B. The 'Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Hovvever, there shail be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To IVASA REDDY RE //TRUE COPY/ t- \ I S OFFICER

1. One CC to SRt K. R. K. V. PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy So loPUCl General of lndia

3. Two CD Copies t\4P LS W 3 p HIGH COUR ,l DATED i1311112025 <'-ii- i; ) t B tl'i i025 .2 .;i' ORDER WP.No.30288 of 2A25 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,I,D \ \ )4