ORDER Yadav, J. -- 1. Union of lndia and its functionaries being aggrieved by the order passed by Central Adminsitrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, on 23.9.2011 in Original Application No. 628 of 2011 have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. 2. Original Application at the instance of respondent No.1, Physical Education Teacher (F)-cum-Head Mistress, Girls House No.3, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ratibad, Bhopal, was directed against the order dated 4/06-07 -2011 whereby she was transferred from Ratibad to Nagda, district Ujjain-II (M.P.), upon revocation of her suspension. 3. The Tribunal placing reliance on the principle of law laid down in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sangathan and others v. Dr. R.K.Shastri and another: 2005 (4) MPHT 352 , quashed the order of transfer. 4. The principles of law laid down in Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra) are that: "(i) when an employee is kept under suspension pending enquiry, he/she retains his/her lien over the post from which he/she is suspended; (ii) the station of posting immidiately before suspension would be the headquarter vis-a-vis the suspended employee unless the Competent Authority changes the headquarter of the suspended employee in public interest; (iii) any vacancy caused on account of suspension pending enquiry, is to be filed by a reservist and where a reservist is not available by officiating appointment; and (iv) on revocation of suspension, the employee becomes entitled to report back to his place of posting from where he is suspended. And once he reports back to duty, the employer may, in exercise of power of transfer, transfer him/her." 5. Whether these principles are applicable in the case at hand depends on the given facts, which are that the respondent No.1 while holding the charge of House Mistress, Girls House No.3, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ratibad, Bhopal, was proceeded against for the negligent act resulting in death of a girl student of Class VIII Ku. Shivani Chauhan, on 22.4.2011. Students of House No.3, protested against the retention of petitioner as House Mistress. The petitioner and one Smt. Sulata Bhargava were placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry by order dated 25.4.2011, their headquarter was fixed at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Gandiya, Ujjain. On 27.6.2011, petitioner was charge sheeted. Shivani Chauhan, on 22.4.2011. Students of House No.3, protested against the retention of petitioner as House Mistress. The petitioner and one Smt. Sulata Bhargava were placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry by order dated 25.4.2011, their headquarter was fixed at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Gandiya, Ujjain. On 27.6.2011, petitioner was charge sheeted. The charges levelled against her were that "while working as PET (F) at Jawaher Navodaya Vidyalaya, district Bhopal (M.P.) with effect from 1994 failed to maintain devotion to her duties and failed to take all possible steps to follow/implement the safety and security guidelines issued by the Samiti causing delay in providing medical treatment as a result of student of class VIII, Ku. Shivani Chauhan of Jawaher Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ratibad, district-Bhopal, expired on 22.4.2011 due to her ill health. This act on the part of Smt. Sangeeta Gurudev, PET (F) amounts to negligence of duty and negligence of duty and violation of Rule 3-1 (ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by which disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against her." 6. Subsequently, by order dated 4-6/07/2011 the suspension was revoked. While revoking the suspension she was directed to be transferred to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, district Ujjain-II (M.P.). In pursuance whereof an office order dated 14.7.2011 whereby she was relieved from Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ghadiya, Ujjain with a direction to report to Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bhopal to get herself relieved to proceed on transfer to her new place of posting, i.e., Jawaher Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nagda : Ujjain-II was issued. Thereafter, by order dated 15.7.2011, petitioner was relieved from Bhopal to Ujjain-II. 7. Respondent successfully challenged the order of transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by impugned order quashed the order of transfer, holding: "7. No doubt judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of MP in the case of Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra) deals with the order of the appellate authority, but it is the ratio of the judgment, which has to be seen. The ratio of the judgment is that while exercising powers of revoking suspension, other powers could not be exercised simultaneously. While a government servant is placed under suspension his or her headquarters can always be changed. When suspension is revoked the logic is that the Government servant can no longer affect the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. The ratio of the judgment is that while exercising powers of revoking suspension, other powers could not be exercised simultaneously. While a government servant is placed under suspension his or her headquarters can always be changed. When suspension is revoked the logic is that the Government servant can no longer affect the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it is implicit in the order of revocation of suspension that there is no harm in keeping the Government servant on duty at his or her original place of posting. Viewed in this light it is a fact that impugned order not only revokes the suspension of the Applicant, duty also transfers her to a different place. Revocation of suspension in the present case was no doubt done under the provisions of clause 'e' of sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, but, according to me, there ratio of the judgment in the case of Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra) will apply in this case also. In view of this. I hold that the part of the impugned order whereby the Applicant has been transferred from Bhopal to Nagda is set aside and the Respondents are directed to post the Applicant back at her original place of posting at Bhopal. It appears that the applicant has been relieved from Bhopal, but has not yet joined at her new place of posting. Therefore, the Respondents are also directed to regularize the intervening period by granting her leave of the kind due to her and for which the Applicant applies to them. While granting this relief to the Applicant, it is made clear that the Respondents shall not be debarred in any manner in considering the transfer of the Applicant as a part of nor mal administrative function. The present order setting aside the transfer of the Applicant has been passed only because the said order has been passed at the same time when the power vested in sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was exercised to revoke the suspension of the Applicant." 8. The present order setting aside the transfer of the Applicant has been passed only because the said order has been passed at the same time when the power vested in sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was exercised to revoke the suspension of the Applicant." 8. The question as posed by the petitioner is whether in the given facts of present case that after the revocation of suspension the petitioner was relieved from the place where she was attached during suspension and only after her joining at substantiative post, her transfer to new place was effected, the principle enunciated to the case of Dr. Shastri would get attracted. 9. Besides, laying down the principle regarding posting of an employee after revocation of suspension, it was also held in Dr. Shastri case (supra) that once an employee reports back to duty, the employer may in exercise of power of transfer, transfer him (her). 10. In the case at hand the facts being clear that the respondent was transferred only after she reports back to her substantive post, she was relieved for the transferred place. Merely because the revocation order contained the recital of her being transferred will not mean that the revocation of suspension was conditional. The facts of the case at hand being different, than that of Dr. Shastri (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the order of transfer. 11. Transfer, trite it is, is an incident of service. An employee cannot insist upon to be posted at a particular and more particularly in the context of the eventualities of the present case, where the administrative exigency is writ large. 12. In these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. The respondent shall now report to the place of transfer as ordered on 4/06-07-2011 within seven days from communication of this order; whereupon the petitioner herein shall give her joining in accordance with law. 13. The petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.