WW HiQjH ¢$ERT (BF €HH§TY§$GARH§ 3§LASPER Writ Petiticn 1S; No. 1w? of 2098 K. Ramu: 81b. KV, Subarac, agw abcut 53 West years, Snifas, fife: CV34 Distréct Durg Suwavihar, (CG) Neharunagar, ?eti€écn§£ Vafsas ‘1) Shr! GP. mama 3.6M {3f BHELW Riowfjgi‘ Nagpur (Char, Sm (fv?aharashi”a}. Mehim' Gamma 345, Kéngsway, 4} Consmstian Manager}. B.H.E.L‘ Siie Parana Bh§iag Eistrict Burg 03(3), 3} Tha (Maharasthra Execu§ive Directsr, Esz—EL. PS~WR Nagpur {Writ Petiticn umer Arta‘cte 226 of the C0nstitu€ion 0f End?) 5%: Hcn’bég ML satish K. Agniham, J Present: SM Jitendra Gupfa; counsez for the peiitiwier.’ Shri zJVS Deg) (3cm; Advosate ferthe $tate‘ @Rai. QRDER (Pas§$d on 1&3-2W8} Wim censerst of .ieamed counse! apnearmg far both the parties} the matter is \ heard imaiiy. 2} Learned counsei appearing for me petiti‘cmer submits éhaE é‘ne §mpugned iransfer arder dated 84-2038‘g’Amexure W1) was passed cm acceunf of maia fide exem‘se 0f powar as there wa$ compiaint agamst me petitioner and r enquiryi Homing was found age-ms: him, he was exonerated :jAnnexure P5). The peémcner is unab£e t0 connect the transfer nrder with the enquiry as he was exenerated in the enquiry. Thus, there was nc reason to transfer the petiricmer in a ease where he has been exenerated‘ ; 3) Be that as ii‘ max/r ihe crder és an administrative Greer ane‘ rt is mt necessary ta wriie reasons in {he transfer Greer trier whether ii is due t0 administrative xigency or in pubiie inieresi. This is a discreticn of the employer to place an , w empioyee at an approprEate piace keeping in vi$w {he pubééc mteresé and adminisérative exigency‘ 4) {t is we” settied prirgcip£es of {aw that the {ransfer is an incident (3f service and it is §or ‘ihe employer to decide as to where a paiiicuiar oificerfempieyee be posted keeping in View pubiic interest as weii as adminisirative exigency. Court has iimited jurisdictien to interfere in the transfer matter and iiiis Ceurt can interfere cniy in the case cf preved maia fide; men-competence cf authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the ruies and reguiationsr 5) The petitioner faiied to eerabiish a case er streng maia free and rm ether grounds nave been raised which are permissible in law‘ 6) in view of the foregoing, this pe‘iiiion stands dismiseed. No order aste were. T» s, a Sd/_ 3 Satish K. Agnihbtri‘ r Judge