Judgment 1. The two petitioners Ram Bhawan Singh and Rakesh Kumar have challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20 August, 2002 in the case registered as O.A. No. 388 of 2002. The cause for filing a case before the Tribunal arose as these two petitioners were visited with orders relieving them of their posting and take up another on transfer. The petitioner no. 1 (Ram Bhawan Singh) was transferred to Kanchrapara and the petitioner no. 2 (Rakesh Kumar) was transferred to Liluah. This is a matter which relates to Eastern Railway. 2. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, The first argument is that the transfer orders had been challenged whereas the Central Administrative Tribunal has misdirected itself in examining the relieving orders only. It is not in issue that what was challenged is an order dated 24 April, 2002. Even otherwise this would not effect the merits of the aspect which have been noticed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whether it is a relieving order or a transfer order. 3. The first aspect which strikes the High court is that the two petitioners are accounts persons who are posted in the Accounts Department. They were in a fiduciary capacity and apparently were peeping into the telephone calls which were made by the officers. At the slightest instance they seem to be paging their officers as to where exactly they were making their telephone calls. Thereafter, they made repeated representations to the superior officers with generalities as allegations against the officers. There is not one single instance of any specific complaint against any specific officer so that any matter could be examined. The only instance is of one Sri V. N. Yadav, Welfare Officer, who is supposed to have misutilised his position and has been termed as a focal muscle-man. But specific allegations have not been cited. The rest of the complaints which have been made by the two petitioners whether to the President of India, the Prime Minister, the Home Minister or the higher echelons of the Railway Administration rest on generalities. The court has noticed these aspects as these records were referred to in much detail during arguments. 4. One petitioner has been posted at a particular place since 1988, that is, 14 years and the other since 1990, that is, 12 years. The court has noticed these aspects as these records were referred to in much detail during arguments. 4. One petitioner has been posted at a particular place since 1988, that is, 14 years and the other since 1990, that is, 12 years. Clearly, these petitioners were misutilising their position as being trade union leaders to intimidate the railway administration. General allegations against superior officer without specific instance can also be termed as the tyranny between a section of staff who has stayed too long at a particular station. If there were specific instances against officers then the Union could cite these with responsibility before the Administration or the Railway Board. General targeting of superior officers is an exercise which is not meant to be encouraged. 5. The railway administration has not committed any error in asking the petitioner to move another station. The General Administrative Tribunal likewise has not committed any error in not granting the relief which the petitioners sought. 6. Dismissed.