1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3016/2008 Pritam Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 13th October, 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Anand Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Counsel. ... To challenge the judgment dated 2.5.2008 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur this petition for writ is preferred. In brief facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police (North), Jodhpur by an order dated 6.4.2008 transferred the petitioner, a Constable from GRP Jodhpur to GRP, Ajmer. The transfer aforesaid was made on basis of certain complaints. By alleging malafides and extraneous considerations challenge was given to the order aforesaid. Learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine by holding that the transfer impugned was effected in administrative exigency without having any extraneous considerations or malafides. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner failed to appreciate that transfer of the petitioner was founded on a compliant and such a transfer is certainly stigmatic. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the 2 respondents defending the order passed by the Tribunal and the order of transfer in general. The respondents have also placed on record all the relevant note-sheets of the proceedings those ultimately resulted in transfer of the petitioner. From perusal of record it reveals that the petitioner is working as Constable at Railway Station, Nagaur since 2001. Certain complaints were received by the Superintendent of Police, GRP (North), Jodhpur regarding working style of the petitioner. A preliminary inquiry was also made and it was found that the petitioner remained under certain controversies during a communal clash at Nagaur. The superintendent of Police reported all the circumstances to the Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan who in his turn by an order dated 5.4.2008 instructed to transfer the petitioner. Heard. The order of transfer bears reference of certain complaints made against the petitioner and those are also considered by the competent authorities while passing the order impugned. It is also true that the complaints made against the petitioner were subsequently withdrawn and contents of those complaints were also not found highly truth- worthy. However, it is well settled that transfer of an employee is an incident of service and the courts should not interfere with an order of transfer unless that is made in violation of a statute or is based on 3 malafides. The employer is also not required to disclose administrative exigency, but in the instant case the respondents have shown entire record giving rise to impugned transfer and from examination of that it reveals that as a measure of enforcing discipline and to avoid unwarranted controversies a conscious decision was taken in public interest. As such, the transfer impugned is not punitive but in administrative exigency. A mention of “complaints” in no way alters administrative character of the order of transfer. The competent authorities have taken into consideration all prevailing circumstances and objectively reached at a conclusion to transfer the petitioner in public interest and such decision is not open for interference, thus, I am in absolute agreement with the findings given by learned Tribunal that the transfer of the petitioner was in administrative exigency. No interference, therefore, is warranted by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is dismissed accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '