1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1803 OF 2009 Bhanu Pratap Singh : Petitioner versus Union of India and ors. : Respondents. Mr.Rahul G Walia for the Petitioner Mr. Chetan Agarwal for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : J N PATEL & C L PANGARKAR, J DATED : 2nd March 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The Petitioner who at the relevant time was working as a constable in the Railway Protection Force came to be transferred on 18th December 2007 from Mumbai to Bhavnagar under a transfer order dated 18th December 2007 along with 28 other persons. It appears that two days after the transfer order was issued to the Petitioner, he was arrested by the CBI/ACB, Mumbai on 20th December 2007. On 24th December 2007 another case came to be registered against the Petitioner. Therefore, the Respondents suspended the Petitioner on 18th January 2008 and he was served with a charge sheet by department. 2 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has made repeated representations to the Respondents, but the Respondents have failed to take into consideration his plea for cancellation of his transfer and therefore he approached this Court. 4. It is contended that the Respondents’ act of transferring the Petitioner while he was under suspension is illegal, wrong and further it is malafide and the same is being done to deprive the petitioner from effectually defending the criminal case registered against him as well as the departmental inquiry which is initiated against him. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v/s State of Punjab and others reported in 2000 INDLAW SC 2396 wherein it has been observed that if no justification for transferring a personal has been made particularly, when that person was already placed under suspension and an inquiry was being conducted against him, it will be nothing but a meaningless transfer and therefore the said transfer order was quashed and set aside. 6. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was transferred under an administrative order along with other person even before he came to be arrested by the police. Thereafterhe was suspended and departmental action was initiated against him. 3 We do not find that the Court should interfere in the matter in exercise of its writ jurisdiction particularly when the Court does not find that the order of transfer is malafide or unjustifiable. 7. We are further informed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that the departmental proceedings have been transferred to Bhavnagar that is the place where the Petitioner has been posted on being transferred but the petitioner has failed to join his post on transfer and avoiding to participate in the Departmental Enquiry. 8. In the given facts and circumstances the Petition stands dismissed. The Petitioner should co-operate in the Departmental Enquiry which will help the Respondent in concluding the same expeditiously. (J N Patel, J) (C L Pangarkar, J)