ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 29.1.2013 in O.A. No.590 of 2012 by which the Tribunal while allowing the Original Application quashed the order dated 1.8.2012 transferring the opposite party from KVS Regional Office, Bhubaneswar to K.V. Sambalpur and directing issuance of necessary order to that extent forthwith. 2.From the facts of the case, it is revealed that the opposite party while working as an Assistant at KVS Regional Office, Bhubaneswar was served with an order of transfer dated 1.8.2012 to the following effect : No.F. 15046/1/2012-KVS (BBS)/12748Dated 01.8.2012 TRANSFER ORDER Under para 7(e) of the transfer guidelines of KVS, Sh. V.S.N. Murty, Assistant is hereby transferred in public interest from KVS Regional Office, Bhubaneswar to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sambalpur with immediate effect and stands relieved on 01.08.2012 (AN). Sh. V.S.N. Murty, Assistant is entitled to TA/DA as per rules. Sd/-R. KALAVATHI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 3.On receiving the said order of transfer, the opposite party preferred the aforesaid Original Application challenging the said order mainly on the ground that the said order of transfer is punitive in nature along with other grounds, such as, the other employees, who are continuing in the Regional Office for much longer period than the opposite party, have not been transferred and the opposite party has been transferred by applying the provisions of Clause 7 (e) of the Transfer Guidelines for Teachers (up to PGTs) and others up to Assistant. In the Original Application, the opposite party while seeking quashing of the order of transfer also prayed for quashing the Clause 7(e) of the Transfer Policy Guidelines on the ground that the same is contrary to the settled law that punitive transfer is bad in law. 4.The Tribunal in the impugned order considering the rival submissions made by the parties came to the conclusion that the sole point to be decided in the case is whether the transfer has been resorted to as a measure of punishment. Referring to Clause 7(e), the Tribunal held that the said Rule unequivocally makes it clear that transfer of an employee could be effected, if his/her stay becomes prejudicial to the interest of the organization, where he was posted. Referring to Clause 7(e), the Tribunal held that the said Rule unequivocally makes it clear that transfer of an employee could be effected, if his/her stay becomes prejudicial to the interest of the organization, where he was posted. The Tribunal interpreted the said clause by holding that the said clause gives a delicate hint that without reasons to be recorded in writing that the stay of the so called employee is prejudicial to the organizational interest, transfer can never be resorted to. The Tribunal referred to the Note Sheet from which it is found that the order of transfer could be issued on the ground that despite certain office orders, the applicant has not reported for duty in the Administrative Section. It also recorded that there are no such charge memo issued to the applicant in this regard to explain his conduct, let alone, holding the applicant guilty of misconduct. Even there has been no reason recorded in writing as to what prompted the authorities to resort to Clause 7 (e) of the Transfer Guidelines. It also observed that language of the Clause 7(e) has a bar and its consequence inasmuch as a sitgma directly and unhesitatingly cast on the conduct of an employee at the whims and fancies of the authorities in the event any such inquiry in that behalf is not conducted and the delinquency established. Basing on the above findings and observations, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order of transfer is punitive in nature and is unsustainable. 5.Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the averments made in the counter filed before it by the writ petitioners wherein it has been clearly mentioned that as to what was the reason for taking recourse to Clause-7(e) of the Transfer Guidelines for transferring the opposite party to Sambalpur. 6.In the counter filed before the Tribunal, we find the following to have been stated :- “That the assertions made in para-4, 8 of the original application are not correct and hereby denied and further it is humbly submitted that an employee joined under Govt. of India service can not claim transfer to a desired location as matter of right and the transfer of an employee during the service period is not a punishment. of India service can not claim transfer to a desired location as matter of right and the transfer of an employee during the service period is not a punishment. Further it is not out of place to submit here that the applicant was working in KVS, R.O., Bhubaneswar w.e.f. 10.7.2007 and consequent upon retirement of one Assistant on superannuation on 30.11.2011 from K.V.S., R.O., Bhubaneswar, an office order dt. 19.3.2012 was issued to the applicant assigning the work of retired employee in Admn. Section in addition to his normal duties in Accounts Section with further direction that the applicant will not be assigned any audit duty in view of the above changes in his work, but the applicant did not work in Admn. Section as assigned by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, K.V.S., R.O., Bhubaneswar till 16th April, 2012, as a result a large number of important/time bound ‘Daks’ marked to the applicant were kept pending and as the applicant did not attend the assigned work, the status of matter was brought to the notice of competent authority on 17.4.2012 but the applicant on the same day recorded his statement that “With reference to the aforesaid Note Sheet, it is submitted that the matter regarding reporting to Admn. Section for additional duty has already been issued with Deputy Commissioner on 17.4.2012 and appraised his position regarding consolidation of Annual Accounts-VVN/EWS/GPF etc.” and on perusal of the aforesaid submission made by the applicant, the Deputy Commissioner being the competent authority on 19.4.2012 directed that “Before sending documents to Ranchi/Raipur, the work should be completed by 24.4.2012” and on the basis of said direction the status was put up by Admn. Section with the information that the applicant did not attend the work till date and the papers are pending for action. Further the competent authority i.e. respondent No.2 on 1.05.2012 advised the applicant “Please speak” and the applicant noted the said remarks of the competent authority on 01.05.2012 and remained silent without any written submission in connection with not attending the work in Admn. Section and since the applicant did not report in Admn. Section for attending the assigned work in violation of office order dt. Section and since the applicant did not report in Admn. Section for attending the assigned work in violation of office order dt. 19.3.2012 another office order dated 19.6.2012 was issued to the applicant with the direction that “Shri V.S.N. Murty, Assistant now working in Accounts Section is hereby attached Administrative Section of this with immediate effect”, but the applicant hardly sat in Admn. Section for ½ or 1 day for preparing some information haphazardly before the Deputy Commissioner’s concerence-2012 held in Ist week of July, 2012 at New Delhi and after that the applicant did not attend the work assigned to him in Admn. Section and even he did not receive the letters of Admn. Section marked to him in violation of office order dtd. 19.3.2012 and 19.6.2012 of the competent authority dismantling the discipline of office and healthy atmosphere which amounts to disobedience of orders issued by the competent authority and such act of the applicant is prejudicial tot he interest of the organization and in this case no inquiry is required when the applicant himself did not carry out the order issued on 19.3.2012 and 19.6.2012 by the competent authority which established the disobedience of the orders by the applicant. The copies of the letter dated 19.3.2012 and 19.6.2012 are annexed herewith as Annexure-R/4 and R/5 respectively.” 7.For better appreciation, Clause 7(e) of the Transfer Guidelines is quoted hereunder : “7. METHOD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFER. (a)to (d) XXXXXXXXX (e) Provided, an employee can be transferred from a location if the employee’s stay has become prejudicial to the interest of the organization.” 8.This Court, therefore, finds that the only question raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of transfer should have been held to be punitive in nature as has been held by the Tribunal. The answer to the above question if would be in the negative, the order of the Tribunal will become unsustainable. However, if the same is in affirmative, the said order has to be confirmed. 9.In order to appreciate the questions raised before this Court, it should be taken note of the fact that the legal position has been crystal clear in a number of judgments that transfer is an incident of service and transfers are made according to the administrative exigency. 9.In order to appreciate the questions raised before this Court, it should be taken note of the fact that the legal position has been crystal clear in a number of judgments that transfer is an incident of service and transfers are made according to the administrative exigency. If there is no fault in the transfer order and the order does not affect the service conditions, such order cannot be interfered with. Judicial review has a limited scope with regard to the transfer order. It is no doubt true that if in the facts of a particular case, it is shown that the order of transfer is punitive in nature or by way of punishment or attaches stigma to the employee, such order can be interfered with by the Court. The Courts are always reluctant to interfere with the order of transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of the statutory provisions or suffers from mala fide. The Courts or the Tribunals are not the appellate forum to decide the jurisdiction of the order of transfer on administrative grounds. The mode of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts are not expected to interfere with the working of the administrative system by transferring any officer to any other place. It is for the authority to take appropriate decision and such decision shall stand unless the action of the authority is vitiated either by implicating or by extracting conditions without any factual backdrop or foundation. As there cannot be a straight jacket formula in the facts of a particular case, the order of transfer is to be examined with its back drop to come to the conclusion that the order of transfer is punitive in nature and unsustainable. 10.In the facts of the present case, a bare reading of Clauses 7 (e) of the Transfer Guidelines would go to show that the said clause is by way of proviso to the general conditions under which an employee of the KVS can be transferred. It emphasizes that if the authorities find that stay of an employee has become prejudicial to the interest of the organization the order of transfer under the said provision can always be passed. It emphasizes that if the authorities find that stay of an employee has become prejudicial to the interest of the organization the order of transfer under the said provision can always be passed. It cannot be held that just because the word ‘prejudicial’ to the interest of the organization has been used in the said clause, any transfer made under the said provision would be tainted with malice and will be considered as punitive in nature unless the person challenging the order of transfer satisfies the Court of law that there are compelling circumstances from which any reasonable man will conclude that the order of transfer is by way of punishment. If the facts and circumstances of this case are considered in its proper perspective, it would be found that the opposite party hesitated to discharge his duty as assigned to him as stated in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal supported by documents. The said action on the part of the petitioner may be a motive for passing the order of transfer but cannot be by any stretch of imagination, considered to be punitive in nature or attaching a sitgma to the opposite party, more so when the employee’s service rights has been protected in his new place of posting. The transfer order is, therefore, one which comes under the category of administrative exigency and not by way of punishment on the opposite party. In the case of Union of India and others v. Janardhan Debanath and another, AIR 2004 SC 1632 , the Supreme Court held in the facts of the said case that no Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted foreover at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and the efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan and another, (2001) 8 SCC 574 . In the facts of the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note of the Rule governing transfer held as follows : “10. A bare reading of FR 15 makes it clear that except in cases where the transfer is (a) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour or (b) on a written request, the Government servant cannot be transferred or except in a case covered by Rule 49 appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien. The clear intention of the prescription is that except the two categories indicated above, in all other cases the pay to be paid on transfer shall not be less than of the post on which he holds a lien. Exception is made in case of a transfer where it is on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour. In a case where transfer is on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, the same can be made to a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien. Similar is the position where a transfer is made on a written request. Where the transfer is otherwise than for inefficiency or misbehaviour or on a written request made by the transferred employee, the protection of pay is ensured. The High Court seems to have completely misconstrued the Rule as if there cannot be any transfer in terms of FR 15 on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour. The view is clearly contrary to the pronounced intention of FR 15.” 11.The said rules involved in the facts of the said case can be said to be in pari materia with Clause 7 (e) of the Transfer Guidelines in the present case. The view is clearly contrary to the pronounced intention of FR 15.” 11.The said rules involved in the facts of the said case can be said to be in pari materia with Clause 7 (e) of the Transfer Guidelines in the present case. With regard to the question of attaching a sitgma, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case held that the manner, nature and extent of exercise to be undertaken by Courts/Tribunals in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affected any service conditions-status, service prospects financially and same yardstick, norms or standards cannot be applied to all category of cases. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visits the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration. 12.Applying the above position of law to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the order of transfer impugned by the opposite party before the Central Administrative Tribunal did not warrant any interference as it cannot be said that the said order is either punitive in nature or attaches a stigma to the opposite party. In the result, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.590 of 2012 is set aside and the transfer order of opposite party is held to be valid in law. 13.This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, but in the circumstances without cost. Petition allowed.