ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure P/12), whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short ‘the CAT’) rejected the application of petitioner directing the competent authority to reconsider the transfer order of the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 afresh and pass necessary orders in furtherance to the report submitted by the ICC on 03.02.2020, as per law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of impugned order. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a physically challenged employee and posted as Superintendent of Railway Bhandar Department Bilaspur (C.G.). He was elected the President of Physically Challenged Employee Association (for short “PCEA”) in the year 2017. The petitioner being President of PCEA initiated several steps for the welfare of physically challenged employees and in order to expose irregularities and corruption of his division, he had filed several application under RTI. The petitioner filed an appeal under RTI (Annexure P/2) and when the information sought by the petitioner was supplied, the irregularities and corruption came to fore. On account of this act of the petitioner, the corrupt officers of the railway department and his division having enmity with the petitioner, concocted a false story and on 28.11.2019, a complaint (Annexure P/3) of filthy and ugly messages alleged to be sent by him to one lady namely Rajeshwari who is also a physically challenged employee was lodged against the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, when he sought the copy of said complaint through RTI, the concerned RTI officer replied that no such complaint was available on record, and when the proceeding was initiated, the concerned department provide a copy of the complaint. 4. Thereafter, an FIR (Annexure P/4) was lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 509(B) of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur vide FIR No. 0419/19 dated 29.11.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application (Annexure P/5) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 4. Thereafter, an FIR (Annexure P/4) was lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 509(B) of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur vide FIR No. 0419/19 dated 29.11.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail application (Annexure P/5) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. During the pendency of bail application, the victim/complainant namely Rajeshwari filed an affidavit (Annexure P/6) before the trial Court on 04.12.2019 to the effect that the FIR was got lodged by victim namely Rajeshwari in the misconception and misleading, she has no objection if the petitioner is granted bail and accordingly, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide Annexure P/7. Thereafter, an enquiry complaint committee was constituted and proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner appeared on the every date of hearing. The petitioner was then transferred by the enquiry committee of Railway Department. The disciplinary committee without considering any representation and submission of the petitioner passed the transfer order as disciplinary action. 5. Being aggrieved by the report of Internal Complaint Committee (for short “ICC”) and transfer order dated 10.07.2020, the petitioner filed an original application (Annexure P/11) before the CAT bearing Original O.A. No. 203/356/2020 for setting aside the transfer order dated 10.07.2020. The learned CAT rejected the application of petitioner directing the competent authority to reconsider the transfer order of the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 afresh and pass necessary orders in furtherance to the report submitted by the ICC on 03.02.2020, as per law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of impugned order. The order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 05.09.2023 is Annexure P/12. Thereafter, the ICC of Railway Department in compliance of order dated 05.09.2023, charge sheeted the petitioner on 20.09.2023 vide charge sheet No. CDMS (G)/ SF-5/IK/OS/Dy. CMM(S)GSD/R/2023/436 and thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply of the charge sheet dated 20.09.2023. Hence this petition by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: “(a) Issue the writ/order or direction in the nature of certiorari for the setting aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No. 203/356/2020. (b) Issue writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus stay the order of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench dated 13.07.2023 in O.A. No. 203/356/2020 during the pendency of this petition. (b) Issue writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus stay the order of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench dated 13.07.2023 in O.A. No. 203/356/2020 during the pendency of this petition. (c) Issue writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus that the concerned authority, posted to the petitioner on his previous place and post with all dignity. (d) Issue writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the concerned authority be rectified the APAR and service record of the petitioner. (e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioners together with cost of the petition.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order dated 10.07.2020 issues by the railway department and the report of internal complaint committee dated 03.02.2020 are in gross violation of law and against the principle of natural justice. The respondent No. 4/complainant filed an affidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur that she had made the complaint in misconception and misleading and transfer order dated 10.07.2020 passed by the railway department biased and in mala-fide intention. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is President of physically challenged association, therefore, he has been targeted by the senior officers of the railway department. The transfer order of the petitioner has been passed by the railway authority in violation of laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel also submits that the learned CAT did not pass the order for setting aside the transfer order and instead it has directed the concerned authority for re-enquiry within 60days without rhyme and reason. The order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned CAT is violative of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and section 300 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is receiving the threat of murder from the concerned authority. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and prays for direction to the concerned authority to post the petitioner on his previous place of posting with all dignity. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos1 to 3 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the South East Central Railway Disability Employee Welfare Association (SECRDEWA) is not a recognized association. The petitioner has filed this petition on false and frivolous ground. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos1 to 3 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the South East Central Railway Disability Employee Welfare Association (SECRDEWA) is not a recognized association. The petitioner has filed this petition on false and frivolous ground. The respondent No. 4, a female employee of Bilaspur Division/SECR had made a written complaint on 28.11.2019 against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had transmitted filthy and ugly messages on her mobile through WhatsApp and the ICC started inquiry against the petitioner. Accordingly, complaint (Annexure P/3) was referred to ICC for inquiring in to the complaint. The petitioner was served with the copy of Complaint on 08.01.2020 during the second hearing of the ICC. Further a copy of complaint was also supplied to the petitioner on 13.05.2020 in response to his online application dated 04.02.2020 under RTI Act and the Respondent No. 04 also lodged an FIR No. 419/2019 on the basis of same written complaint/allegation in the Police Station of Torwa/Bilaspur, registered as Criminal Case No. 2927/2020 u/s 509B of IPC and the matter subjudice before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. 8. Learned counsel also submits that to inquire into the allegations, ICC summoned the petitioner vide letters dated 03.12.2019, 08.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 to which he attended the inquiry proceedings on 05.12.2019, 10.01.2020 and 16.01.2020. The petitioner was served with the copy of Complaint on 10.01.2020 during the second hearing of the ICC and a copy of complaint was also supplied to the petitioner on 13.05.2020 in response to his online application dated 04.02.2020 under RTI Act. The ICC conducted first stage inquiry and the Committee vide its minutes dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure R/1), recommended for disciplinary action under the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and for transfer of petitioner. The recommendations of Committee for transfer during pendency of inquiry under Section 12(i) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, is a statutory provision. These provisions are to ensure victims are not victimized or discriminated against while dealing with complaints of sexual harassment. The victims of sexual harassment have the option to seek transfer of the perpetrator or their own transfer. No opinion on the allegations or their correctness can be expressed which remains subject to enquiry. 9. These provisions are to ensure victims are not victimized or discriminated against while dealing with complaints of sexual harassment. The victims of sexual harassment have the option to seek transfer of the perpetrator or their own transfer. No opinion on the allegations or their correctness can be expressed which remains subject to enquiry. 9. Learned counsel also submits that the learned CAT vide order dated 05.09.2023 disposed of the Original Application No. 203/356/2020 with directions to reconsider the transfer order of the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 afresh and pass necessary orders in furtherance to the report submitted by the ICC on 03.02.2020. In compliance thereof, reasoned speaking order (Annexure R/2) has been passed on 09.10.2023 and communicated to petitioner through speed post. In compliance thereof, Office Order dated 10.07.2020 (Annexure P/10) was issued transferring the petitioner from the office of Principal Chief Material Manager, SEC Railway, Bilaspur to General Stores Depot./Raipur under Dy. CMM/GSD/R in the same capacity with maintaining his lien and Seniority in Stores Department on administrative grounds. Learned counsel also submits that the Disciplinary Authority issued Charge Memorandum dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure P/13), with the purport to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The recommendations of Committee dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure R/1) for transfer of the petitioner (Annexure P/10) during pendency of inquiry is a statutory provision under Section 12(i) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different as the purpose, the standard of proof and the approach are all completely different. It was also submitted that learned CAT vide orders dated 05.09.2023 disposed of the Original Application No. 203/356/2020 with directions to reconsider the transfer order of the petitioner dated 10.07.2020 afresh and pass necessary orders in furtherance to the report submitted by the ICC on 03.02.2020, as per law and in compliance thereof, reasoned speaking order (Annexure R/2) has been passed on 09.10.2023 and communicated to petitioner through speed post. As such, the respondent authorities complied with the order of learned CAT and if the petitioner has any grievance, he may file application before the learned CAT and this petition may be dismissed being not maintainable. 10. As such, the respondent authorities complied with the order of learned CAT and if the petitioner has any grievance, he may file application before the learned CAT and this petition may be dismissed being not maintainable. 10. Reliance has been placed on the decision dated 08.04.2019 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another vs. Kailash Ramesh Tandel in Civil Appeal No. 3456 of 2019. 11. No notice was issued to respondent No. 4. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner is working in Railway Department. While he was posted at Bilaspur, the respondent No. 4 filed a complaint against him and an FIR was also lodged against the petitioner under Section 509-B of IPC. It is also not disputed that the ICC of respondent authorities inquired into the matter and the petitioner was transferred by the respondent authorities to Raipur. Being aggrieved by the transfer order, the petitioner filed an application before the learned CAT as well as the report of ICC and the learned CAT passed the impugned order dated 05.09.2023 holding that the case of the petitioner be considered by the ICC afresh within 60 days from the receipt of copy of order. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is handicapped person and is President of PCEA in SECR. He being the President of PCEA in SECR obtained some information under RTI and exposed malpractices/corruption of all the senior officers of his Division and due to the aforesaid act of the petitioner, the senior officers of respondent authorities by hatching criminal conspiracy against the petitioner managed to get filed a complaint against the petitioner by a lady employee and FIR was lodged, wherein while obtaining anticipatory bail, the complainant/respondent No. 4 filed an affidavit on 04.12.2019 (Annexure P/6) before the learned trial Court that she had lodged the FIR against the petitioner in the misconception and misleading and looking to the NOC of respondent No. 4, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure P/7), which shows some mala-fide intention against the petitioner. 15. As regards the transfer of petitioner, the ICC has jurisdiction to make recommendation with regard to transfer of an employee. 15. As regards the transfer of petitioner, the ICC has jurisdiction to make recommendation with regard to transfer of an employee. Section 12 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 provides as under: “12. Action during pendency of inquiry: (1) During the pendency of an inquiry, on a written request made by the aggrieved woman, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, may recommend to the employer to: (a) transfer the aggrieved woman or the respondent to any other workplace. (b) grant leave to the aggrieved woman up to a period of three months. (c) grant such other relief to the aggrieved woman as may be prescribed. (2) The leave granted tot eh aggrieved woman under this section shall be in addition to the leave she would be otherwise entitled. (3) On the recommendation of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, under sub-section (1), the employer shall implement the recommendations made under sub-section (1) and sent the report of such implementation to the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be.” 16. The learned CAT in its order dated 05.09.2023 while making some observation held in Paras 7 and 8, which read thus: “7...........On the one hand, the ICC has accorded its approval to transfer the applicant, which no doubt can be done as per Section 12 of Act of 2013 but on the other hand, the Committee has also expressed its view that the applicant is guilty of the misconduct. The recommendation of the Committee to initiate disciplinary action against him appears to be on the basis of acceptance of guilt by the applicant, whereas the transfer of the applicant has been suggested by the Committee as the complaint has expressed her opinion to transfer the applicant from that place. The provisions of Rule 9 (2) clearly makes it clear that the Committee constituted for such purpose shall be deemed to be Inquiring Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, the enquiry report dated 03.02.2020 cannot said to be a preliminary enquiry especially when the Committee had already delivered its final verdict. The Disciplinary Authority could have taken a decision based on the enquiry report submitted by the ICC rather than keeping the applicant on transfer for an indefinite period. The Disciplinary Authority could have taken a decision based on the enquiry report submitted by the ICC rather than keeping the applicant on transfer for an indefinite period. Moreover, the applicant has now completed more than three years at the transferred place. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we disposed of this Original Applicant and direct the competent authority to reconsider the transfer order of the applicant dated 10.07.2020, afresh, and pass necessary orders in furtherance to the report submitted by the ICC on 03.02.2020, as per law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 17. Thus, the respondent authorities in compliance of order of learned CAT, having observed the facts and circumstances of the case, passed an order on 09.10.2023. The operating Para of this order is as under: “In view of above, no action can be taken as regards your transfer till finalization of the disciplinary/criminal case. The reasoned speaking order is issued in compliance of the orders dated 05.09.2023 passed by Hon’ble CAT/Jabalpur in O.A. No. 203/356/2020.” 18. It is not disputed that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner was transferred on the recommendation of ICC and it is clear from Section 12 of Act, 2013 that ICC shall recommend the transfer of an employee during the pendency of inquiry and the respondent authorities transferred the petitioner on the recommendation of the ICC and the learned CAT directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and respondents looking to the pendency of criminal case, passed the order dated 09.10.2023. 19. The provisions relied upon by the learned CAT pertaining to transfer at the instance of aggrieved lady is a statutory requirement where transfer has been ordered if the lady so requests. Irrespective of the same and independent of this if an administrative decision is taken to transfer an employee this being within the administrative powers of the establishment it cannot be termed as unsustainable or illegal. Accordingly, as an administrative decision has been taken by the administrative authorities to transfer the petitioner on a statutory provision, we see no error in the order passed by the learned CAT warranting reconsideration. The petitioner also did not file any application against this order before the learned CAT and directly filed this petition. 20. Accordingly, as an administrative decision has been taken by the administrative authorities to transfer the petitioner on a statutory provision, we see no error in the order passed by the learned CAT warranting reconsideration. The petitioner also did not file any application against this order before the learned CAT and directly filed this petition. 20. Accordingly, finding no ground, we dismiss the writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an application before the learned CAT, if so advised.