Judgment :- (1) Magnanimity of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) in O.A. No. 110 of 2009 on 28-01-2009 has been in fact assailed in this Application. (2) The petitioner hereinabove, was a Head Ticket Examiner in New Jalpaiguri Station. He was under an Order of Transfer issued on 10/04/2008 from Katihar to Tinsukia. (3) He took the point that the Order of Transfer was not served upon him but in the meantime Sparing Memo (Page 43 of the Application) was issued. (4) Acting on the basis of the prayer made by the present petitioner in O.A. No. 110 of 2009 for canceling the Transfer Order and rescinding the Charge Sheet issued on 25/04/2008 the learned Tribunal directed filing of Rejoinder and fixed the matter for hearing. (5) It was charitable enough to direct ".........in the interest of justice, we direct that the applicant is at liberty to join the transferred place of posting, if. He so wishes, within fourteen days from today. We further direct that final result of the disciplinary proceeding shall not be published without leave of this Court." (6) Smt. Mukherjee submitted that in the absence of any alleged misconduct the petitioner could not be transferred from his present posting to a different Division. (7) She further submitted that in the absence of issuance of any formal Transfer Order simply on the basis of the Sparing Memo departmental proceeding was initiated. (8) Smt. Mukherjee further submitted that it would cause immense hardship for the petitioner to attend the departmental proceeding at New Jalpaiguri from his present place of posting, which was done in breach of the relevant Circulars of the Railway Board. PER CONTRA : (9) Standing Counsel for the Railway Administration did not find any wrong with the Order of the learned Tribunal. He was of the view that since liberty has already been granted by the learned Tribunal to join the post-he can take all the points available to him upon such joining before the appropriate authority. (10) In our opinion it is little that we can do in this application. There was an Order of Transfer. The petitioner chose not to comply with the same. That has resulted in a disciplinary proceeding. He has approached the learned Tribunal. (11) The issue is pending before the Tribunal and necessary directions which we have quoted hereinabove have already been passed. There was an Order of Transfer. The petitioner chose not to comply with the same. That has resulted in a disciplinary proceeding. He has approached the learned Tribunal. (11) The issue is pending before the Tribunal and necessary directions which we have quoted hereinabove have already been passed. (12) We feel sufficient protection has been given to the petitioner by the learned Tribunal and also it was extremely charitable in giving the petitioner an option to join his transferred place of posting within a period of fourteen days (i.e. from 28/01/2009). In stead, we find he took out this application on 11/02/2009. (13) We do not appreciate the conduct of the petitioner. Neither he will comply with the directions of his employer i.e. Railway Administration; nor he will abide by the finding of the learned Tribunal. (14) In this trajectory we feel we should not invoke our power of judicial review on the action of the Tribunal, which we feel has been Just Desert for the petitioner. (15) Simply, we can say, of course redundant although that all the issues that have peeved the petitioner necessarily, remains open before the learned Tribunal before which the entire matter is pending. As a matter of precaution, we would record that while disposing of this application on the premises indicated hereinabove, we have not entered into the merits of the case and any observation made in course of this Order shall not be construed as expression of opinion by this Court on the merit of the case. (16) Application accordingly disposed of. (17) Learned Registrar, Inspection-(l) is requested to communicate this order to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) forthwith.