IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 245 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.12.2009 Sunil Kumar ……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Present: Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P.Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) Through the instant special appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 15.12.2009, while disposing of Writ Petition No.1201 (S/S) of 2009. 2. During the course of hearing of the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant acknowledges, that there was an allegation in respect of a relationship between the appellant and Ranjana Gahlot. To probe with the aforesaid allegation, a fact finding inquiry was conducted, whereupon both the appellant and the aforesaid Ranjana Gahlot were transferred by an order dated 05.12.2009. 3. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that he was not associated in the fact finding inquiry, which has resulted in this transfer, and that, an order to his detriment had been passed on the basis of an inquiry, held at his back. The second contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel 2 for the appellant was, that the instant order dated 05.12.2009, by which he had been transferred, had a penal consequence, inasmuch as on account of certain allegations relating to his conduct, he had been transferred, by way of punishment. 4. It is not possible for us to accept either of the two contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, because it is not a matter of dispute in the entire pleadings of this case, that the allegations levelled against him, which were the basis of the fact finding inquiry, were false or incorrect. No allegations of malafide have been levelled against any of the authorities, who were instrumental in passing the impugned order of transfer. Besides the aforesaid, it would be important to notice that the appellant as well as the aforesaid Ranjana Gahlot, have both been transferred to stations within the district of Udham Singh Nagar. Their posting prior to impugned transfer order was also within the district of Udham Singh Nagar. As such, there can hardly be any legal basis for the appellant to be aggrieved. 5. In view of the above, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere in the order rendered by the learned Single Judge. 6. The instant special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Tarun Agarwala, J.) ( J.S.Khehar, C.J.) 18.12.2009 P.Singh