IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4568 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 4th April, 2011. Mohinder Pal Petitioner through Mr. M.K.Dogra, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. H.K.Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Municipal Council, Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. He has been serving since the year 1973. The petitioner's wife successfully contested the election of Municipal Council and has been thereafter elected as President of the Municipal Council, Dera Baba Nanak. Respondent No. 4 is the Executive Officer of the said Municipality. The petitioner is aggrieved of his transfer from Dera Baba Nanak to Amritsar. He attributes motives to respondent No. 4 and asserts that since the petitioner's wife has objected to and got cancelled various work contracts awarded by respondent No. 4, that the petitioner has been got transferred as a punitive measure. The details of some of the work contracts are mentioned in the complaint dated 07.04.2010 sent by the elected Municipal Councilors to the Director Vigilance, Local Government, Punjab. It is alleged that in order to circumvent the inquiry pursuant to the said complaint and to pressurize the petitioner's wife to withdraw the complaint that respondent No. 4 has manipulated the impugned transfer order. Notwithstanding the afore-stated allegations, it appears that no case to interfere with the transfer order is made out, it being an incidence of service. Since the official respondents were called upon to explain as to why the allegations levelled against respondent No. 4 which are quite serious in nature are not being inquired into by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau, learned counsel for the parties have been heard on this limited issue. Without expressing any view on the merits of the allegations levelled by the petitioner or his wife or other Municipal Councilors in the complaint dated 07.04.2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Director, Local Government, Punjab to refer the complaint dated 07.04.2010 to the Vigilance Cell of the Department, who in turn is directed to hold a fact finding inquiry within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. Disposed of. Dasti. April 04, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE