V , XI-HC—22 XI—HC-22 ‘Wm Wmwa..r.§ixzK/.¢m {a 200 W - WWWW WW§WW %:3T%Iran%¥r Mr. Raja Sharma, cou nsel for the petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Pvasi, ‘ The petitionm“ has pm erred this petition under Article 226/ 227 of 1 the Constitution of India q estioning the legality 8r, propn’ety of order dated 11.4.2005 (Annex P- 1) whereby the petitioner has been transfeiTed from Durg to K Brief facts leading to ding of this petitionare that the petitioner is working as Assistant S u‘geon in the District Hospital, Durg. On 10.2.2005 the petitioner w s trapped and caught red handed by Anti Corruption Bureau While ng hribe and as per the case of the petitioner so far charge she t has not been filed against the petitioner. t. Perusal of the transf r order shows that the petitioner has been transferred with reference o the action taken by the Anti Corruption Bureau and that is whyeco y of the transfer order has been sent to the Inspector General of Police, el LawVer for the State. ker} mae. The impugned tran r orer has been passed on the dictates of some external agency. Learned counsel for P u i d e d XI-HC-22 . Wmmai%a WW§WW ‘,< K. aawm .J uumg m6 course of’a’rg 111161113 hauncd ca unsci Io; ampuititionEr informed that the petitioner was working at Durg for last about? 1/2 years, therefore, it caimot to termed as immature transfer. Even otherwise as far as interference by Anti Corruption Bureau is concerned, there is nothing om record which shows that the petitioner has been transferred meiely, on the direction of the Bureau. The impugned order says that the petitioner is transferred temporarily till caught red handed by the Bureau while taking bribe, he has been transferred from his place and moreover, he is working at Durg around about 2 1/2 years, therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to’make out acase for interference by this Court. As far as tle transfer policy in which it has been mentioned that minimum tran sfer should be made is concerned, in the first instance the policy is for the guidance of administrative authority to take into consideration at the time of issuing transfer orders, it is not mandatory that the authority to follow the policy by letter and spirit, but the discretion is given to the authority to transfer on administrative exigency and moreover, policy is not enforceable at law. It is settled law that transfer can be challenged only on the. ground of malafide or if the transfer is made contrary to any statutory; rules. The petitioner has not been able to raise any ground In View of the above, I am of the opinion that this petition has no substance, same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, M. (W.)P. stands disposed of. ‘/ / L.C.Bhadoo Judge that his transfer is malafide. No.1207j05 85 LA. No.3016/05 also Sd/— ,r/ . / 1 3, ' further orders. The petitioner has been Embrhmnmagr mm WW..NHN a 200