WP(C) 4204/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Goswa mi, learned GA for respondent No. 3 who accepts notice on his behalf. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel for Department of Excise, Govt. of Assam for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 who accepts notice on their behalf. Since the afo resaid counsel have accepted notice for their respective respondent(s), no fresh notice is called for. As agreed to by the counsel of the parties, this court proposes to dispose of th is writ petition at the motion stage itself. The petitioner herein was initially appointed in the post of Assistant Inspector of Excise after due selection in the year 1990. Subsequently, in the year 2005 he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Excise and posted him at Dhemaji Ex cise Circle as Excise Inspector in the year 2005 (Annexure-A). Pursuant to the Election Commission of India direction made vide their letter dated 14.12.2010, the petitioner herein a long with several others were transferred to the place as shown against their na mes. Petitioner was thus transferred to Bihpuria Excise Circle vice Sri Rubul Al i, I.E transferred. Pursuant to the transfer order (Annexure-B), the petitioner joined in Bihpuria Excise Circle on 18.02.2011 as Inspector of Excise and had been discharging his duties sincerely and without any blemish. But the Joint Se cretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department vide his order date d 10th August, 2011 (Annexure-C) transferred Shri Budheswar Milli, I.E. the peti tioner herein to Dhakuakhana Excise Circle within a period of 6 months from the date of his joining in Bihpuria Excise Circle, vice Shri Bhubaneswar Das, I.E. , private respondent No. 5. He being aggrieved, filed this writ petition challen ging the transfer order dated 10th August, 2011 (Annexure-C) contending inter al ia that the impugned transfer order was made with an ulterior motive that too t o accommodate the private respondent No. 5 which appears to be malafide, iillega l, arbitrary and contrary to the office memorandum dated 4.2.2011 (Annexure-F). Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while supporting thi s writ petition contends that the Excise Department vide its Office Memorandum d ated 4th February, 2002 laid some criteria for transfer of transferrable officer s and staffs from one place to another and by making impugned order of transfer , the respondent authority(s) themselves violated the office Memorandum dated 4t h February, 2011 (Annexure-F). In the Office Memorandum it has been provided the rein that the transfer of transferrable officers and staffs should be normally t ransferred only after completion of 3 years of service at one place but an offic er need not necessarily be transferred when he completes 3 years in one s tation if the interest of public does not demand so. Over and above, for a tran sfer before completion of 3 years the transferring authority is to give reasons in writing for making such transfer order and also to obtain approval of the Chief Minister before making transfer order. It is contended by Mr. C hetri that neither the approval of the Chief Minister is obtaine d nor any justification is provided in the impugned order. Mr. Chetri, under t hese circumstances, submits that the impugned transfer order transferring the pe titioner to Dhakuakhana Excise Circle within a period of 6 months is agains t the Office Memorandum and in that circumstances, the same can be treated as ar bitrary, illegal and without authority. Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 is unable to place before this court any substantial materials to justify the tran sfer of the writ petitioner to Dhakuakhana Excise Circle. The impugned order, however, does not speak for any ground or reason assigned th erein to substantiate the transfer of the writ petitioner to Dhakuakhana Excise Circle. Since the transfer order is made in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 4.2 .2002, the transfer order appears to be malafide and arbitrary and without autho rity. In the considered view of this court, the impugned transfer order cannot s ustain in law. It is accordingly set aside and quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. No costs.