Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal") whereby orders dated 17.08.2006 and 25.08.2006, Annexures A -l and A -2 respectively, transferring respondent No. l, were set aside.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 was working as Fireman Grade -I and posted in the office of Garrison Engineer, Engineer Park, Bathinda Mil Station, Bathinda. Respondent No. 1 made complaint against one Iqbal Singh, Fireman Grade -I. On the basis of the complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against said Iqbal Singh. Subsequently, another communication was addressed by respondent No. 1 for closing of the case as it was pointed out that said Iqbal Singh has neither misleading attitude nor any misbehaviour. A show cause notice dated 4.2.2005 was issued to respondent No. 1 as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for giving misleading statement/information. An Enquiry Officer was appointed since respondent No. 1 failed to respondent to the notice. Subsequently, said respondent was transferred from Bathinda to Suratgarh vide order dated 17.8.2006 which was challenged by the said respondent before the Tribunal by moving an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").
(3.) IT was pointed out in reply that respondent No. 1 has been transferred on administrative ground. The cadre of Fireman is based on the Command Level seniority and, therefore, the transfer was not outside the cadre. The learned Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 under the Act, inter alia, holding that such transfer is against the posting/transfer policy dated 9.2.2004. It was pointed out that show cause notice dated 4.2.2005 is not a notice under C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules", therefore, it cannot be said any disciplinary proceedings are pending against respondent No. 1 which alone will entitle the present petitioner to transfer the said respondent. It was also found that respondent No. 1 alone was transferred and that too during the middle of academic year which is not permissible in terms of the policy. Still further, the seniority of respondent No. 1 has been ordered to be reckoned from the date of his reporting the duty at new Unit which will cause prejudice to the said respondent.;