SBCWP4858/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4858/2010 Dinesh Kumar Katara Vs. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 09.04.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Anil Upman, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Petitioner Dinesh Kumar Katara has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 25.03.2010 of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby appeal of petitioner, filed against order of his transfer, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner has been transferred on account of reasons of mala-fide on the part of respondent No.2 Avinash Mathur, who was earlier working as Superintending Engineer at Bharatpur. Reason behind it was that a criminal case was registered against Avinash Mathur by one accounts officer Karan Singh in which SBCWP4858/2010 // 2 // petitioner was cited as a witness. Respondent Avinash Mathur pressurized petitioner to give statement in his favour and when petitioner did not oblige, he was illegally transferred. Learned counsel submitted that Tribunal has failed to appreciate these facts while deciding petitioner's appeal and has singularly been guided by fact that petitioner was last posted at Bharatpur in 1997. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner and perusing judgment of the Tribunal, I find that Tribunal was not persuaded to accept the argument of mala-fide on the part of respondent No.2 because it found that vide impugned order not only petitioner but as many as 39 employees were transferred and he was only one out of them. Secondly, petitioner was not complainant in alleged criminal complaint filed against respondent No.2 and it is also not borne out from record as to when petitioner was summoned as a witness and when he appeared before the Court as a witness. In the course of argument it transpired that even statement of petitioner has so far been not recorded by the Court. Allegation of mala-fide is appeared to be far fetched and is not convincing. As rightly held SBCWP4858/2010 // 3 // by Tribunal, petitioner had been posted at Bharatpur in office concerned since 1997, therefore he could not be continued at the same place for such a long period because his continuation in the same office for such a long period may tend to give him right of vested interest and otherwise adversely affect administrative working. I therefore do not find any illegality in the order of petitioner's transfer, hence no ground to interfere in impugned order of the Tribunal. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//