Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr vs Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede on 21 July, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.07.2025
+ W.P.(C) 10362/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Iskaran Singh Bhandari,
CGSC with Mr. Piyush Yadav,
Adv.
versus
SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv.
and Mr. Arvind Nayar Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Nikhil Palli, Mr. Jatin
Prashar, Mr. Shadab Anwar,
Mr. Niyati Razdan, Ms. Bhavya
Sharma, Mr. Vidushya Parth,
Ms. Diksha and Mr. Shubham,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. Mr. Nikhil Palli, the learned counsel, enters appearance on
behalf of the respondent.
2. In view of the above, the caveat stands discharged.
CM APPL. 42969/2025 (Exemption)
3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 10362/2025 AND CM APPL. 42966-68/2025
Signed W.P(C) 10362/2025
Signing Date:28.07.2025
18:30:02
4. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated
20.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order) passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟) in O.A. No. 3677/2024, titled
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Union Of India & Anr., allowing
the OA filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the Order
dated 30.05.2022 (hereinafter referred to as „Transfer Order‟),
whereby the petitioner had transferred the respondent from Directorate
General of Analytics and Risk Management, Mumbai (hereinafter
referred to as „DGARM‟) to the Directorate General of Taxpayer
Service, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as DGTS).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Tribunal has committed various errors in the Impugned Order. He
submits that while it was the admitted case of the respondent in his
rejoinder filed in the above OA, that he had remained posted at
Mumbai for 12 years, out of which, for a period of 6 years and 8
months, he was on deputation "in Mumbai" and had claimed that the
same needed to be excluded in terms of para 7.3 sub-para 7.3.1 of the
Transfer/Placement Guidelines, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as
„Transfer Policy‟), the learned Tribunal, however, without any
material on record, in its conclusion, while attributing malice to the
petitioners in passing the Transfer Order, has stated that out of these 6
years and 8 months, the respondent had spent 4 years and 4 months in
Delhi. He submits that this finding was without any basis and contrary
to the own assertion of the respondent.
6. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in
Signed W.P(C) 10362/2025
Signing Date:28.07.2025
18:30:02
not appreciating that the OA filed by the respondent itself was barred
by limitation in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). He submits that though
the Transfer Order was dated 30.05.2022; while the OA was filed only
in September 2024, that is, beyond the period of limitation. The OA
was not accompanied with any application seeking condonation of
delay. He points out that this objection was raised by the petitioners,
but has not been dealt with by the learned Tribunal in its Impugned
Order.
7. He submits that the petitioners had also stated that the
respondent has been transferred due to some allegation of "illegal
activities" against him and this was supported by an FIR being
registered by the CBI against the respondent dated 11.05.2023.
However, in the Impugned Order, the learned Tribunal has again
attributed malice to the petitioners for the impugned transfer, by
stating that there was no proof of any such "illegal activities" against
the respondent.
8. Issue notice.
9. Notice is accepted by Mr. Nikhil Palli, the learned counsel on
behalf of the respondent.
10. The learned senior counsels appearing for the respondents
submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that out of 6 years
and 8 months spent by the respondent on deputation, for 4 years and 4
months, he was in Delhi. They submit that this finding was based on
the self-declaration of the petitioner that organization where the
respondent was on deputation, had its headquarter in Delhi. They
Signed W.P(C) 10362/2025
Signing Date:28.07.2025
18:30:02
submit that this information was derived from the website of the
petitioners themselves.
11. On the issue of limitation, they submit that post the Impugned
Transfer Order, the respondent had submitted various representations
to the petitioner; these representations were eventually rejected by the
petitioners only on 18.07.2024. The O.A. was, thereafter, filed in
September 2024, that is, within the period of limitation.
12. On the allegation of "illegal activities", they deny the same and
submit that a subsequently registered FIR cannot be used as a
justification for the Transfer Order. They submit that various other
documents were also placed before the learned Tribunal, which have
not been filed by the petitioners along with present petition.
13. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
14. We note that that the Impugned Transfer Order was dated
30.05.2022. It is not disputed that the respondent joined his transfer
posting in June 2022. Thereafter, the respondent did make some
representations against his transfer, however, did not approach the
learned Tribunal challenging the Transfer Order. It appears that the
respondent also sought his re-transfer to Mumbai, which was rejected
by the petitioners. Whether this would have extended the period of
limitation for challenging the initial Transfer Order, is a question
which should have been determined by the learned Tribunal.
However, prima-facie, we do not find any finding being given by the
learned Tribunal on this issue though raised by the petitioners.
15. The question of OA being barred by limitation has not been
Signed W.P(C) 10362/2025
Signing Date:28.07.2025
18:30:02
answered by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner has placed reliance
on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy. to Govt. of India v.
Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 231, in support of his
plea that the preliminary objection has to be answered by the learned
Tribunal before it enters the merits of the grievance raised.
16. Even on the matter of the place of deputation, the learned
Tribunal has attributed malice to the petitioner by holding that out of 6
years and 8 months that the respondent was on deputation, he had
spent 4 years and 4 months "in Delhi". The learned senior counsels for
the respondents, today admit that during this 4 year and 4 month
period as well, the respondent was physically posted in Mumbai,
though his headquarter was at Delhi. In fact, they submit that this was
the plea taken even before the learned Tribunal, however, the finding
of the learned Tribunal is based only on the website of the petitioners.
17. They submit that the period of deputation, however, had to be
excluded from his period at Mumbai for purposes of transfer as per
Clause 7.3.1 of the Transfer Policy.
18. We, however, prima-facie find that the learned Tribunal has
attributed malice to the petitioners by finding that the respondent was
posted "in Delhi", which was not even the case of the respondent.
19. At this stage, the learned senior counsels for the respondent
submit and pray that the matter be remanded back to the learned
Tribunal for a fresh adjudication.
20. Accordingly, we set aside the Impugned Order passed by the
learned Tribunal. We restore the OA back to its original number.
21. The learned Tribunal shall consider the OA afresh, including on
Signed W.P(C) 10362/2025
Signing Date:28.07.2025
18:30:02
the question of limitation, remaining uninfluenced by any observation
made by the learned Tribunal in its Impugned Order or by us in the
present Order. All rights and contentions of the parties shall remain
opem to be agitated before the learned Tribunal.
22. As the matter is being remanded back to the learned Tribunal,
we request the learned Tribunal to expedite the adjudication of the
same and decide the same preferably within a period of two months of
its first sitting.
23. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 4th
August, 2025.
24. The petition along with pending applications is disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
JULY 21, 2025/bsn/p/my
Signed W.P(C) 10362/2025
Signing Date:28.07.2025
18:30:02
