logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 078 print Preview print Next print
Case No : IA No. 01 of 2026 In WP(C) No. 42 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Parties : Bhajana Biswas Versus The State of Tripura, (Represented by the Secretary, Department Information & Cultural Affairs, Govt. Of Tripura), Agartala & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Dhruba Jyoti Saha, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mangal Debbarma, Additional Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 04-02-2026
Head Note :-
Subjec
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Transfer order
- Administrative order
- Mala fide
- Show‑cause notice
- Interim relief
- Suspension
- Stay
- Arbitrariness

3. Summary:
The petitioner, a senior employee of SDICA, challenged a transfer order dated 06‑12‑2025 that moved her from Teliamura to Belonia, alleging severe hardship, ill health, and that the transfer was punitive and mala fide. She filed an interim application seeking suspension of the transfer pending disposal of the main writ petition. The respondent failed to justify the transfer, and the court noted the arbitrariness of issuing a show‑cause notice and a transfer order on the same day. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that a transfer used as punishment is illegal, the court found the transfer order to be mala fide. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer to remain suspended until the final decision on the writ petition.

4. Conclusion:
Injunction Granted
Judgment :-

Learned Counsel Mr. D. J. Saha is present for the applicant-petitioner.

Learned Addl. G.A Mr. M. Debbarma is present on behalf of the respondents.

This present applicant-petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 06.12.2025 issued by the respondents and by filing this IA prayed for suspension of the said transfer order till disposal of the main petition.

Heard both the sides.

It is the case of the applicant-petitioner that she is posted in the office of SDICA office Teliamura since 2023 and by an office order dated 24.08.2023 [Annexure-1] her duty was allocated. Thereafter again on 04.12.2025 [Annexure-2] the allocation of duty in respect of the applicant-petitioner and others were changed by the concerned Senior Information Officer and by the order it was intimated to her that she will only perform the duties related to the organization of all kinds of cultural activities related works, field activities as and when assigned by the Officer-in-Charge with further direction to hand over all the files related to cultural activities in her custody. After that on 08.12.2025 she submitted one representation to the local Officer requesting to handover the files. But that was not taken into consideration for smooth functioning of the office. Thereafter the respondents-authority on 06.12.2025 [Annexure-7] issued one show-cause notice to give explanation in respect of some vouchers for an amount of Rs.62,651/-. According to Learned Counsel the application-petitioner in pursuance of the said show-cause notice submitted her reply on 15.12.2025. But surprisingly on the same date the respondents-authority by an office order dated 06.12.2024 [Annexure-4] has transferred her from SDICA office Teliamura to SDICA office Belonia which caused severe hardships to the present applicant-petitioner. According to Learned Counsel the petitioner is on the verge of retirement and her mother is more than 90 years and she is in bad ridden condition and if at this stage she is to shift from Teliamura to Belonia in that case that will cause undue hardships to her for which the applicant-petitioner has approached this case for setting aside the said transfer order and also to stay operation of the said transfer order till disposal of the writ petition.

It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that she has been suffering from severe illness and she was admitted in Teliamura Sub-Divisional Hospital with effect from 10.01.2025 to 16.01.2025 with some complications and still she is undergoing treatment. So Learned Counsel urged for taking lenient view in this regard. In support of his contention Learned Counsel relied upon one order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2009 AIR(SC)1399 wherein in para Nos.19 and 20 Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

               “19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law.

               20. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.”

Relying upon the same it was submitted from the order of transfer issued by the respondents-authority it appears that she has been transferred out of malice, to save others which needs to be interfered with.

On the other hand, Learned Addl. G.A. Mr. M. Debbarma at this stage sought for seeking appropriate instructions from the department. This submission is not at all acceptable because this case was posted on 22.01.2026. After that it was posted on 27.01.2026. But in spite of allowing opportunity nothing could be submitted by the state-respondents. However, I am satisfied with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the applicant-petitioner. It appears that by one memo dated 06.12.2025 [Annexure-7] she was asked to show-cause to give some explanation and surprisingly on the same date by another order she was transferred from SDICA Teliamura to SDICA Belonia which shows arbitrariness on the part of the respondents-authority and this sort of action on behalf of the respondents cannot be permitted in the eye of law.

In view of the above, the order of transfer issued by the respondents-authority which shall remain suspended/stayed till disposal of the writ petition.

With this observation this IA stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be supplied to Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner. Also a copy of this order be communicated to Learned Addl. G.A appearing for the State-respondents for information and compliance.
 
  CDJLawJournal