:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.9398 OF 2007 NO.9398 OF 2007 NO.9398 OF 2007 K.J.Seby ..Petitioner Vs. The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for petitioner. Mrs.S.V.Bharucha with Mr.Y.S.Bhate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.M.S.Mohite & Mr.A.R.Kapadnis for respondent No.4. Mr.V.S.Masurkar, GP for respondent No.6. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. BHATKAR,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2009 : 5TH MARCH, 2009 : 5TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. . Perused petition. 1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claims following reliefs : i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in that nature directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to hold necessary inquiry and/or to start criminal proceedings against the respondent Nos.4 and 5. ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in that nature quashing and setting aside the orders passed in the Departmental Enquiry by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in that nature directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to revoke the order of transfer effected by respondents by their communication dated 29th June, 2001 and to send the petitioner on deputation to the Bureau. 2. Taking last prayer clause first, petitioner is seeking revocation of the order of transfer effected by respondents vide their communication dated 29th June,2001. The petitioner is challenging the order of :2: transfer dated 29th June,2001 after a lapse of almost seven years. The said relief cannot be granted to the petitioner at such a belated stage. On this count alone, prayer sought by petitioner needs to be rejected. At any rate, so far as the power to effect transfer is concerned, it is the part of the internal management depending upon the exigencies of the work and administrative consideration. This Court cannot, sit in appeal over the decision to transfer. The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for this purpose, unless specific malafides are alleged against specific person joined and named in the petition. No such case is made out in the petition as such. This prayer, therefore, stands rejected. 3. So far as second prayer relating to the challenge to the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner, imposing penalty of reduction of pay at one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect from 27th August,2004, pursuant to the departmental action is concerned, it is for petitioner to exhaust statutory remedy of preferring an appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Since the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, we do not propose to entertain this prayer on this count. This prayer is rejected leaving petitioner to chose his alternative remedy, if advised. 4. So far as, first prayer is concerned, it is needless to mention that petitioner had already filed a petition being Writ Petition No.9288 of 2003 and :3: this Court was pleased to direct the senior officials to examine whether independently or along with petitioner any case could be made out against respondent Nos.4 and 5. The senior officials have implemented these directions and examined and found that no any case was made out against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for departmental action. We have examined the papers placed before us. We are of the opinion that the directions issued in the earlier petition were carried out and no case is made out to take view contrary to the view taken by the said authority. Consequently, said prayer cannot be granted for the reasons stated hereinabove. 5. So far as the directions to initiate criminal proceedings against respondent Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, we are afraid that no such directions in the facts and circumstances of the case that too while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot be issued. Needless to mention that if petitioner is advised, he may resort to the appropriate remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure in his individual capacity exercising his personal right, for which he does not need any authority from writ court. 6. For reasons recorded, we do not see any reason to entertain this petition. No such case is made out. The petition is, thus, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA (MRIDULA (MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) :4: