1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2900/2010 Girish Kumar Paliwal vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: 26.3.2010. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. SP Sharma for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 9.2.2010 (Annex.1) and according to the petitioner that order has not been served upon the petitioner. It is submitted that relieving order has also been passed and that has not been served upon the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 9.2.2010 on the ground that petitioner expose the respondent no.5 and even lodged the FIR against the respondent no.5 as back as in the year 2006. However, in that FIR, police submitted FR and then petitioner submitted a protest petition. Thereafter, the petitioner pointed out the misconduct of the respondent no.5 to the various authorities and also sought direction from the court to find out the progress in the criminal case, which is sent for investigation to the police. The petitioner also pointed out that in spite of the several representations and in spite of the fact that even the Commissioner of the Municipal Council itself observed that the presence of the respondent no.5 in the Municipal Council, Barmer will certainly influence the propose inquiry against the respondent no.5. It is also pointed out that in 2 spite of that communication, no action has been taken against the respondent no.5. It is also submitted that respondent no.5 twice transferred from the Municipal Council, but was not relieved. Now the respondent no.5 is sought to be given the work on which the petitioner was working in the Municipal Council, meaning thereby, the person who has exposed the respondent no.5 will be removed and at his place the respondent no.5 will be installed and, therefore, it is clear case of malafides as well as the transfer has been affected just to favour the respondent no.5. The petitioner has placed on record several documents and drew my attention to all the documents to show that the respondent no.5 is very influential person and the Director, Local Bodies is not in position to take any action against the respondent no.5. It is also submitted that it is a clear case of victimization of the petitioner because of the fact that he exposed the corruption in the Municipal Council, Barmer. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. It may be true that petitioner might have got some reason to believe that respondent no.5 is committing some wrong in the Municipal Council, Barmer and that his belief may be to the extent that the respondent no.5's action are offences under the penal provisions of law and he lodged FIR and this is going on since 2006. In the year 2010, the petitioner has 3 been transferred from Municipal Council, Barmer to Municipal Council, Pipar City. This court has no reason to believe that in such facts and circumstances when the matter is under investigation since 2006 before the police and in the knowledge of the respondent-authorities then the petitioner has been transferred just to save the respondent no.5. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to observe that mere lodging the complaints against the employer or superiors or collegues itself is no shield against any transfer if made in administrative exigency. The petitioner's contention is that he is being victimized because of influence of respondent no.5 then, history shows that after 4 years of petitioner's lodging FIR, the petitioner has been transferred. Therefore, prima facie, it cannot be gathered that the transfer order has any connection with the alleged exposure by the petitioner of respondent no.5. Be it as it may be, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order Annex.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in that situation no-one will have courage to expose the corrupt persons working in the department itself. The contention of the petitioner is not well founded. It cannot be presumed that all authorities above the petitioners are also weak so that they cannot take any action against the corrupt persons. However, before doing that, the higher authorities are required to satisfy about the allegations 4 levelled by one of the employees. However, the petitioner is now free to submit his representation alongwith copy of this order to the concerned authorities so that the allegations levelled against the respondent no.5 may be examined by the highest authorities. However, it is made clear that decision of the higher authorities depends upon their satisfaction and not merely because of that there are allegations levelled by some of the employees or one of the employee against another employee and the authority, obviously, will look into the matter after taking into account all the surrounding circumstances to clean the administration. The writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed with above observations with liberty to the petitioner to submit his representation. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-