In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh CWP No. 16303 of 2006 Date of Decision: October 13, 2006 Ajit Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT: Mr. H.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 4.10.2006 (P-3) transferring the petitioner from Hathin to Palwal office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer as Gram Sachiv. In September, 1993 the petitioner was transferred from Barara to Hathin and in the month of May, 1994 he was transferred to Hodal, where he worked for more than 10 years. He was ordered to be transferred on 29.6.2006 (P-1) from Hathin to Palwal, which transfer order was cancelled on 1.8.2006 (P-2). However, the order dated 29.6.2006 (P-1) has been restored by the impugned order dated 4.10.2006 (P-3). The petitioner has levelled allegation of mala fide against respondent No. 3 Shri Harsh Kumar, M.L.A. representing Hathin Constituency in the Assembly. CWP No. 16303 of 2006 Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner for one reason or the other wants to continue at Hathin. When he was transferred by order dated 29.6.2006 (P-1), the same was cancelled on 1.8.2006 (P-2). But the respondents have restored back the order dated 29.6.2006 (P-1) by passing the impugned order dated 4.10.2006 (P-3). The impugned order appears to have been passed wholly in public interest. In so far as the allegations of mala fide levelled against respondent No. 3 are concerned, we are not impressed because no connection has been established between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The only allegation is that respondent No. 3 entertains a doubt that the petitioner is not his supporter. Such an allegation is absolutely vague and cannot constitute the basis to record a finding that respondent No. 3 entertains any mala fide against the petitioner. The allegations of mala fide are required to be elaborated by connecting the respondent with the petitioner substantially so as to constitute a basis for passing any administrative order as has been pointed out by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (M.M.S. BEDI) October 13, 2006 JUDGE Pkapoor 2