1 (1)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2636/2008 (Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (2)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2693/2008 (Vijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (3)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2692/2008 (Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (4)S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2694/2008 (Bhagirath Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 9th January, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Trilok Joshi, for the petitioners. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, for the respondents. .... Being involving a common question of facts and law, these petitions for writ are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Petitioner Bhagirath Singh, a Head Constable, is transferred from District Hanumangarh to District Banswara; petitioner Vijendra Singh, a Constable, is transferred from District Hanumangarh to District Pratapgarh; petitioner Krishna Kumar, a Constable, is transferred from District Hanumangarh to District Barmer; and petitioner Rajendra Kumar, a Constable, is transferred from District Hanumangarh to District Sirohi. While transferring all the petitioners under the order dated 2.4.2008 the Inspector General of Police Headquarters also instructed the Superintendent of Police of respective 2 Districts not to allow field postings to the petitioners for a period of three years. A challenge to the order aforesaid is given on the count that the transfer is not in administrative exigency but as a measure of penalty. The respondents in reply to the writ petitions stated that all the four petitioners were found involved in an incident of demanding bribe and, therefore, an inquiry was conducted against them as per provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). By an order dated 23.9.2008 the petitioners have already been penalised for the allegations of misconduct and they were transferred outside the District Hanumangarh only to remove them from a particular place. Heard counsel for the parties. It is well settled that a civil servant can be transferred from one place to another in administrative exigency. The administrative exigency defers in different set of facts and circumstances, however, the transfer cannot be adopted as a measure of discipline to impose a penalty. In the instant matters the petitioners were transferred on the count that they were subjected to an inquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 that resulted into an order of 3 punishment. Counsel for the petitioners has given me a copy of the order dated 23.9.2008 passed by the appellate authority accepting appeals preferred by the petitioners by setting aside punishments imposed by disciplinary authority. It is stated by the respondents in reply to the writ petition that the petitioners were transferred from Hanumangarh District as they were subjected to an inquiry for demanding bribe. Be that as it may, now no penalty survives against them and they are also not facing any inquiry and as such their transfer from District Hanumangarh to the Districts of Barmer, Pratapgarh, Banswara and Sirohi are not required. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners by the force of interim order passed by this Court are still continuing in District Hanumangarh. In view of the factual position stated above, I am inclined to accept all these petitions for writ. Accordingly, the same are allowed. The order impugned dated 2.4.2008, passed by the Inspector General of Police Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur transferring the petitioners outside the District Hanumangarh stands quashed. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.