Rajesh Kumar Gouhari vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 2269 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. The petitioner filed the writ petition on 16.5.2005 seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Issue an order quashing transfer orders dated 12.2.2004, 18.2.2005 and 4.5.2005 as being illegal and contrary to the contract of service of the petitioner as also against the interest of the institution;

(b) Issue an order quashing the relieving order dated 9.5.2005;

(c) Issue an order directing the respondent to allot work to the petitioner commensurate with his qualification, discipline and the contract of employment and any other order that this Court may deem fit and proper to pass.

The impugned order dated 12.2.2004 is an order transferring the petitioner from the administration side to Institutional Development Division for assisting HOD(II) in various urgent tasks during the financial year. He was further directed to maintain daily diary of work performed by him and to get the same certified from HOD(II) on daily basis. By the impugned order dated 18.2.2005, the petitioner was transferred to Bangalore for closure of Bangalore Branch for recovery of Ed.CIL dues. He was advised to report to Bangalore Branch by 1.3.2005. Subsequently, the next impugned order dated 4.5.2005 was passed by which the earlier order was modified to the effect that the petitioner would report to Bangalore Branch by 20.5.2005 for taking over charge from Nandeesh Babu.

2. The petitioner holds a degree in MBA (Finance). He joined the respondent No. 2 as a Consultant on contractual basis on 13.11.1995 for a period of 3 months and the appointment was extended from time to time. Vide a letter dated 30.12.1996, the petitioner was offered the position of Assistant Manager (Internal Audit) in the respondent No. 2 Corporation. The appointment letter, inter alia, has the clause that he would be liable to serve in any part of India and abroad at the discretion of the management. In December, 2001, the petitioner was given the work of administration including acting as a Presenting Officer. The petitioner alleges that during the course of his duties, he came across certain irregularities with regard to award of contract to M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting, user of official transport by senior officers, particularly Director (Technical) and claim of air tickets by the said officers and others. The petitioner alleges that on account of his report, three officers, namely I.P. Kwatra, U.K. Habbu and Ms. Monalisa Sen concerned with the award of the said contract were dismissed from service. The petitioner further contends that on account of his honest actions against the three officers, the senior officers of the respondent Corporation became annoyed, which led to his temporary transfer to the Institutional Development Division vide Office Order dated 12.2.2004, which the petitioner complied with. The petitioner continued working in the Institutional Development Division till he was served with the order of transfer dated 18.2.2005. The petitioner contends that the function of the Institutional Development Division is basically construction, on turn-key basis, for educational institutions. At Bangalore, the respondent No. 2 was engaged in construction of eleven school complexes for Karanataka Residential Educational Institute Society (KREIS) and that the purpose of transfer is to carry out the balance work, which would involve matters such as monitoring the project, apprising the customer of substantial physical completion of work, maintain liaison with the customer, ensure maintenance period obligations etc., which the respondent No. 2 cannot expect the petitioner to perform as he never acquired the skill of a civil engineer. The petitioner further alleges that he received a letter from Project Manager Nandeesh Babu, which discloses that for five of the projects, the defect liability period is yet to be over and that for completing the pending work, knowledge of construction activity is essential. The petitioner made a representation on 21.2.2005 and another representation on 14.3.2005, but instead of withdrawing the transfer order, the respondent has reiterated the same and has passed the impugned order dated 4.5.2005. The petitioner alleges that the transfer is malafide at the instance of few officers due to the action of the petitioner in exposing certain irregularities and resulting in dismissal of some of them. Apart from challenging the order transferring him to Bangalore, the petitioner has challenged his posting in the Institutional Development Division on the ground that he could not have been posted there for any period beyond three months.

3. On the filing of the writ petition, on 18.5.2005 the Court ordered notice to the respondents. The Court also ordered transfer orders to be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing. The stay order continued till 31.5.2005 when in an LPA filed against this order, the Division Bench stayed the order of stay. However, the appeal was dismissed in default on 31.1.2006. Subsequently, on 1.2.2006 the appeal was restored and disposed of without setting aside the order of stay passed by the Single Judge. Hence the order of stay of this Court has been in force since 31.1.2006 and the petitioner has been enjoying protection against implementation of the transfer order.

4. The respondent No. 2 filed a counter on 25.5.2005. It is contended in this counter-affidavit that the petitioner was not required to do any construction activity, that his transfer from finance department to administration department and later to Institutional Development Division and then to Bangalore Branch were routine transfers according to the requirement of the employer, that his transfer to the Institutional Development Division has nothing to do with any financial irregularity of any senior officer of respondent No. 2, that the erring senior officers of the respondent No. 2 have already been removed from service and the misconducts of those senior officers have nothing to do with the transfer orders in question, namely, of 18.2.2005 and 4.5.2005, that the job involved in Bangalore office is mainly to recover dues from clients and closing the balance work not requiring any qualified engineer, that the petitioner had earlier the occasion to visit the project office of the respondent No. 2 at Allahabad in connection with the checking of bills relating to construction work, that he was transferred to Bangalore because of his work experience in the finance and Institutional Development Division and that the transfer of the petitioner is fully justified and is in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment. The respondent No. 2 specifically denied that the petitioner had come across certain irregularities with regard to the award of contract to M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting or reported any misuse of official transport by senior officers and of false claim of air ticket expenses. So far as the award of contract to M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting is concerned, the respondent has disclosed in the counter-affidavit that irregularities were found by the Competent Authority while reviewing the IT Implementation Plan and development of Web Portal, which led to an inquiry and that the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the three officers on the basis of the inquiry report.

5. In the rejoinder, the petitioner submitted that the Bangalore office of the respondent No. 2 has been closed down. The petitioner has reiterated the original case made out in the writ petition including the allegations of malafide. The petitioner subsequently filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the writ petition in order to bring on record all developments, which have taken place after the institution of the writ petition. That application was defective in form. The petitioner subsequently filed another application for amendment on 22.9.2006. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner wants to add lengthy pleadings running into 10 pages. However, the crux of these pleadings is that the Bangalore office has been closed down and no office is functioning there, that the petitioner has suffered the transfer order on account of malafides of A.K. Motwani, Director (Technical), I.P. Kwatra, General Manager (Finance), A.K. Srivastava, Manager, Amit Dutta, Deputy Manager, J.S. Sreedhar, Manager, Ms. Monalisa Sen, Deputy Manager, Vijay Kumar, Manager and U.K. Habbu, General Manager(P), that the irregularities were pointed out by the petitioner to CMD vide a preliminary study report on 11.4.2002 and on the basis of his report, I.P. Kwatra, Monalisa Sen and U.K. Habbu were dismissed, and that the dues to be recovered are payable by the State of Karnataka and no recovery is possible till the arbitration proceedings are over.

6. The petitioner has also given his reasons for alleging malafides against the eight senior officers mentioned above. Mr. Amit Dutta is said to have passed the transfer order. A notice to show cause was allegedly issued based upon the report of the petitioner and action against Mr. Amit Dutta is still pending. The petitioner further alleges that all the 8 officers except Mr. Motwani have been charge-sheeted on his report. However, the admitted position is that Mr. Kwatra, Ms. Monalisa Sen, Mr. U.K. Habbu as well as Dr. Vijay Kumar had already ceased to be employees of the respondent No. 2 or were under suspension at the relevant time and they had nothing to do with the transfer of the petitioner. There is no allegation that either Mr. Srivastava or Mr. Sreedhar had anything to do with the transfer of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner subsequently made another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in which he prayed for adding Mr. Amit Dutta as the respondent No. 3 and Mr. A.K.Motwani as the respondent No. 4. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 22.11.2006. In para-5 of this additional affidavit, the petitioner has stated that Mr. Motwani is the person concerned to decide the transfer and postings in the department under his control, that on 25.2.2003, an office order was issued in which the petitioner was made in charge of office cars and their use and maintenance, that Mr. Motwani in violation of the directions of CMD used the official vehicle while himself availing conveyance allowance, which was brought to the notice of CMD vide report dated 23.7.2003 by the petitioner, that in November/December, 2003, the petitioner made a report to CMD in respect of the proposed trip of Motwani and Amit Dutta by business class and on such report of the petitioner, the CMD directed recovery of half air fare from the officials, that these officials put the petitioner in Institutional Development Division being annoyed with the petitioner on account of such reports and that thereafter these two officials became instrumental in his transfer to Bangalore.

8. Learned defense counsel has offered to argue the writ petition without filing any further reply on the allegations raised by way of amendment. The following order, therefore, deals with the petitioner's case as it stands including the pleas raised in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

9. On 9.11.2005, in presence of the petitioner, who was present with his counsel Shri Sreekumar, the Court put to the respondent as to whether the petitioner could be transferred to any of the other establishments of the respondent. The respondent, instead of offering some other posting to the petitioner, preferred that the petitioner goes to Bangalore to finish the job for which he was posted and that the petitioner was required to recover a sum of Rs. 2 crores, which he could do within a period of two months if he worked in Bangalore. On that day, the petitioner's counsel took a pass-over in order to ascertain if the petitioner can accept the offer, but when the case was called after half an hour, it was reported that the petitioner was unable to respond to the suggestion as his father had developed some problem and the petitioner was busy in looking after his father. The petitioner has, however, subsequently turned down the offer of reporting to Bangalore and work there for a period of three months and to recover the dues of the respondent No. 2. The prayer clause in fact calls upon the Court to quash the transfer as being illegal and contrary to the contract of service. During arguments, however, the ground that the order of transfer was contrary to the contract of service, has not been pressed. Nor has it been alleged that the order of transfer is illegal for any reason other than malice.

10. Mr. Sreekumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner enumerated three grounds for challenging the order of transfer, which were recorded in the order sheet of the Court on 27.11.2006. The first ground is that Wednesbury principles have not been followed and the order of transfer has been passed, which no person of ordinary prudence would have passed as there was no work left to be done at Bangalore where the respondent had closed down the office and nobody was required to be posted. The second ground was that the order was passed under malafide motives. The third ground is that the ostensible purpose for which the petitioner was being transferred to Bangalore, namely, to make certain recoveries did not at all exist inasmuch as the arbitration proceedings in respect of those dues of the respondent had been initiated and, therefore, only at the end of the arbitration proceedings, there could be any question of any recovery.

11. The first and the third grounds are in fact the same. The second ground is of malafides. The second ground has been the principal ground and is, therefore, being dealt with first. On 18.5.2005, when the case came up for the first time to be heard, this Court passed the following order:

The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that he is being victimized for making certain facts public, inter alia pertaining to M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting, which led to the suspension of some senior officers. It is argued that the transfer order is malafide inasmuch as the Petitioner is not a Civil Engineer, and could not have been recruited to the job of Assistant Manager at Bangalore because of this reason. He has also drawn attention to the fact that the present incumbent Shri Nandeesh Babu, M.G. has made a list of matters which are pending, a vast part of which deals with civil engineering. It is also contended that with the transfer of Shri Nandeesh Babu to Itanagar, only the Petitioner would be located in Bangalore. He is not qualified to complete the outstanding work there.

Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the duties at Bangalore entail the recovery and settlement of dues with regard to the projects which have to be wound up. In view of page 91, this statement cannot be accepted. An affidavit of the exact job requirements of the petitioner be filed within two days as prayed for.

Notice be issued to Respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 27th May, 2005.

Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

Mr. C.B.N. Babu, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

Till the next date of hearing the transfer Orders be kept in abeyance.

It is clear that the emphasis of the petitioner on that day was that he was being victimised for making certain facts public pertaining to the contract of M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting, which led to suspension of some officers. To extend further the ground of malafides, the petitioner pleaded that he was not a civil engineer although he was being sent to Bangalore, primarily to deal with civil engineering work. The respondent contended, immediately, that the petitioner would not be required to do any civil engineering work, but was only required to do certain recoveries and settlement of dues. The transfer order was ordered to be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing. The petitioner on that date mentioned about the job requirements at Bangalore as indicative of the malafide intentions of the respondent. The malafide intention cannot be attributed to the respondent No. 2 as such. The intention has to be attributed to some officers and the lack of job requirement for his posting can be cited as symptom from which the malafide could be diagnosed. The petitioner, however, has now raised a plea that Wednesbury principles had not been followed in his transfer orders.

12. In para-9 of the writ petition, the petitioner refers to the allegations in the previous paragraph to show how the actions of the petitioner have resulted animosity against the petitioner amongst senior officers. In paragraph-8, the petitioner has disclosed the following acts having been done by him. (a)During the course of discharge of his duties as Assistant Manager (Finance), the petitioner came across certain irregularities with regard to award of contract to M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting, misuse of official transport by certain officers, particularly Director (Technical) and the claim of air tickets by the said officials and others, which the petitioner reported. (b)The petitioner's position as Presenting Officer in inquiry against the General Manager (Finance) Shri I.P. Kwatra, General Manager (Portal) Shri U.K. Habbu and Deputy Manager (Project) Ms. Monalisa Sen in the irregularity in award of contract to M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting resulted in the dismissal of the three officers and also reference of officials to CBI for investigation. Now so far as the allegation at (b) is concerned, the three officers Shri I.P. Kwatra, Shri U.K. Habbu and Ms. Monalisa Sen were either dismissed or were under suspension (the dismissal order was subsequently converted to suspension) when the transfer order against the petitioner was passed. Therefore, any malice in the minds of these three officers could not be the motive behind the transfer of the petitioner and no further discussion in respect of any malafides on the part of these three officers is required. So far as the fact at (a) is concerned, the petitioner claims to have come across irregularities in award of contract to M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting and misuse of official transport by senior officers, particularly Director (Technical) as well as claim of air tickets by the said officers. So far as the award of contract is concerned, the respondent No. 2 has stated in its affidavit that the Competent Authority came across the same while reviewing the work of IT implementation plan and development of Web Portal. The petitioner was only the Presenting Officer in the inquiry. Obviously by the time the petitioner was appointed the Presenting Officer, those officers had already been charge-sheeted. In any case, his work as Presenting Officer could not have caused any malice in the mind of Mr. Motwani.

13. The name of the officer involved in misuse of official transport and claim of air fare is not disclosed in the petition. In the petition and on the day he obtained the stay order, the petitioner did not emphasize any malafides on the part of this officer as being responsible for the transfer orders. It can be said at the cost of repetition that the petitioner initially emphasized only about annoyance of certain senior officers, who were involved in the affair M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting, who were eventually dismissed/suspended. Had the petitioner been serious about his allegations against the Director (Technical), who misused official vehicle or claimed the air fare, he would have given more details about the misuse of official transport as also claim of air tickets by the said official. He did not even give his name. The respondent No. 2 in his counter in reply to para-8 denied that the petitioner had come across any irregularity in respect of misuse of official vehicle or claim of air fare. In his application for amendment also, the petitioner has not given any details of any misuse of official transport or any reimbursement of air fare against the rules. In this application, the petitioner came out with further allegations of malafides as available in para-22(B). According to him, Mr. Amit Dutta who passed the transfer order, is one of the accused, who had also received a notice to show cause for the inquiry conducted in which the petitioner was the Presenting Officer and that action against him is also pending. He then gives eight names and says that he suffered due to the planned and calculated malafides of those eight persons, whose names are as under:

1. Shri Motwani A.K., Director Technical & Chief Vigilance Officer

2. Shri Kwatra I.P., General Manager, Finance (Stands dismissed)

3. Shri Shrivastava A.K., Manager, P&A

4. Shri Amit Dutta, Dy. Manager P&A

5. Shri Sreedhar G.S. Manager, IS

6. Mrs. Monalisa Sen, Dy. Manager, Projects (Stands dismissed)

7. Dr. C. Vijay Kumar, Manager BD Reportedly resigned

8. Shri U.K. Habbu, G.M. Portal (Stands dismissed)

He then alleged in para-22(B)(t) that those officers adopted a revengeful attitude against the petitioner as the petitioner pointed out financial and procedural irregularities in the award of work to M/s Satyam Renaissance Consulting and that those irregularities were pointed out to the CMD vide preliminary study report dated 11.4.2002. He reiterates the allegations that the three persons I.P. Kwatra, U.K. Habbu, Monalisa Sen were dismissed and adds that the dismissal was subsequently converted into suspension when a change in the Government took place in 2004.

14. Out of the eight persons, six persons, namely Ms. Monalisa Sen, Mr. U.K. Habbu, Mr. I.P. Kwatra, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Srivastava and Mr. Sreedhar had nothing to do with the transfer order and no malafides can be attributed to them. Mr. Amit Dutta did nothing other than communicating the transfer order. So far as Mr. Motwani is concerned, the only allegation about him is what was mentioned in the original petition namely that he had misused the official conveyance and that he had taken reimbursement of air travel beyond rules. This allegation is squarely denied in the counter-affidavit. On 27.11.2006, during the course of arguments, it was stated at the bar that the petitioner made a report on 23.7.2003 that Mr. Motwani was misusing official vehicle and at the same time was also availing of conveyance allowance. It was further stated at the bar that the petitioner made a report on 24.11.2003 to the CMD in respect of the intended travel of Mr. Motwani in December, 2003 and that the CMD directed that half the air fare from the two officers be recovered. These allegations do not constitute any part of the amendment application. Nor are these statements made on oath. The allegations are similarly denied at the bar. The learned defense counsel refers to the denial in the counter-affidavit. Hence the allegation that the petitioner pointed out misuse of official vehicle or claim of air fare by Mr. Motwani stands denied. No case of malafides based on these allegations can be considered by this Court in the writ petition.

15. It can now be considered as to what was the role of Mr. Motwani in the transfer of the petitioner. Mr. Motwani is not the authority to transfer. Nor has he passed the transfer orders. The transfer order admittedly is made by; the Chairman. The respondent submitted on the basis of the records that the proposal for transfer was approved by Mr. S.K. Lokhande, Manager(ID), which was forwarded by Mr. Motwani to CMD. Therefore, malafides, if any, have to be imputed to the person, who proposes the transfer. The petitioner has not named him. Mr. Lokhande, who approved of the proposal, has not been named as one of the officers, who bore any grudge against the petitioner. Mr. Motwani forwarded the proposal to the CMD. As is commonly understood, the business of forwarding is merely placing the proposal for transfer approved by Mr. Lokhande before the CMD. There is no allegation that Mr. Motwani had in any way influenced Mr. Lokhande in approving or making the proposal for transfer. Although the petitioner has made a prayer for adding Mr. Motwani as a party, there is no prayer that Mr. Lokhande be also added as a party in the writ petition. Nor is there any proposal to add the CMD as a party to the writ petition. Mr. Motwani is only one of the many officers and officials involved in making a transfer order. Unless there is any specific plea of either the CMD or Mr. Lokhande of being influenced by Mr. Motwani, there is no force in the allegation that the petitioner's transfer has been occasioned on account of Mr. Motwani nurturing any grudge of any kind against the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear from the foregoing discussion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case that his transfer has been actuated by the malice in the mind of Mr. Motwani.

16. The second limb of malafide is that there is absolutely nothing for the petitioner to do at Bangalore as there is no work at Bangalore where he has been transferred and, therefore, it is malafide. This plea is also supplemented by the plea that the Court should interfere with this transfer order being opposed to the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness. The contention of the petitioner that the transfer order should be deemed to be malafide because there is no work for the petitioner at Bangalore, is based on misconception of the term malafide. For proving malafides, a malice has to be shown. As mentioned above, malice was alleged only in the mind of Mr. Motwani and the petitioner has failed to show that Mr. Motwani had any reason to bear any malice against the petitioner and that he alone was instrumental for his transfer. The petitioner from the very beginning has been alleging that there is no work for him to do at Bangalore. Initially, he raised the plea that he was being sent to do the work of civil engineering. This plea was immediately denied by the respondent and it was clarified by the respondent that the petitioner was only required to recover certain dues. Despite such clarification on the very first day, the petitioner has harped upon the alleged engineering aspect of the work at Bangalore till the very end. The petitioner even says that there was nothing to recover at Bangalore. He himself filed a letter from the Educational Consultants India Limited giving the physical and financial status of the respondent's project running at Bangalore. As per this record also, there were certain recoveries due. This was the position in May, 2005, i.e., at the time the writ petition was filed. During the concluding stages of arguments, the petitioner placed before the Court the information received under the Right to Information Act in which the respondent had disclosed the nature of work required to be done by the petitioner at Bangalore. As per this response given by the respondent, the respondent is still holding office premises and is incurring rent for the office premises. Further fact disclosed is existence of a dispute between the respondent and KREIS, namely the organisation for whom the respondent has built 11 school complexes. It has also disclosed that minimum staff has been deployed at Bangalore and that huge amounts are outstanding against KREIS. Arbitration proceedings between KREIS and the respondent has been disclosed. It is also disclosed that in the absence of the petitioner, who was to go to Bangalore, the work of recovery is being temporarily followed up from Noida. The staff strength at Bangalore has also been disclosed. Some people have been transferred from Noida office to Bangalore and some have been recruited on contract basis. The petitioner has also filed a letter received from KREIS in which KREIS informs the petitioner that KREIS has taken possession of 11 residential school complexes constructed by respondent No. 2, that penalty has been imposed on respondent No. 2 for delayed completion of work, that KREIS has recovered royalty payable to the Government of Karnataka, Department of Mines and Geology amounting to Rs. 26.90 lakhs from the respondent, which is disputed, that issues of dues and recoveries are pending before an Arbitrator and that no balance amount is payable. It is contended by Mr. Sreekumar that the reply of KREIS shows that the information supplied under the Information Act was false. The contention of Mr. Sreekumar is not acceptable at all. KREIS has denied that anything is due from it. That does not mean that the respondent No. 2's case that there are recoveries to be made is false. It only shows that the respondent No. 2's claims are disputed.

17. In any case the documents now produced only show the current position and not the position as it was when the transfer order was made or when the same was challenged in court. The very fact that there is an office of the respondent No. 2 at Bangalore and also that there are dues to be recovered, disputed or otherwise, shows that there was reason for the respondent No. 2 to transfer the petitioner to Bangalore. A decision hit by Wednesbury is one which no reasonable man can come to. It cannot be said that no reasonable person could have transferred the petitioner to Bangalore. It is entirely the discretion of the management as to which employee has to be posted at which place and whether or not a person has to be transferred from one station to the other. There is nothing from which it can be said that the decision was such that no reasonable man could have taken it and hence bad.

18. It has to be noted that the Court's jurisdiction to interfere with an order of transfer is extremely limited. The consistent view of judicial pronouncement is that the Court should not interfere in the administrative discretion of the management. In State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and Ors. , the Supreme Court held that a transfer order should not be interfered with unless it was malafide or prohibited by service rules or passed by an incompetent authority. Keeping only these three grounds available for challenging a transfer, there is no room for examining reasonableness of the transfer order. In Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Anr. , the Supreme Court strongly ruled against courts' interference with the transfer orders. In para-37 of the judgment, the Court said, "Transfer is an incident of service and is made in the administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the courts. This Court consistently has been taking a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner." In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal , the Supreme Court reiterated that transfer order should not be interfered with except when transfer order is (1)shown to be vitiated by malafides, (2) in violation of any statutory provision, or (3) having been passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order. It further held that the allegations of malafides must be based on concrete material and must inspire confidence of the Court.

19. The reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 200, which says that an administrative decision which is based on wholly irrelevant consideration or material or excludes from consideration the relevant material or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at on the material given, may be struck down, is of no avail in the facts of the present case. What the petitioner is submitting is that the respondent can employ other methods to complete the work at Bangalore. The petitioner is praying that on this ground, the transfer order be set aside. Such a plea is not available for seeking judicial review within the scope of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Albeit, if irrelevant considerations are there, that will be covered by the plea of malafides which in the present case has already been rejected.

20. It may also be mentioned here that the Supreme Court has strongly condemned the practice of passing interim stay against an order of transfer during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court in the case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Harrison Malayalam Private Limited (1993) 4 SCC 361.

21. The prayer clause in the petition calls upon the court to quash the order of transfer as the same is illegal and contrary to the contract of service of the petitioner. This plea was not pressed even on the very first day the writ petition came up for hearing. Nothing was shown to the court as to how the order of transfer was contrary to the contract of service. The contract of service incorporates the liability of being transferred to any place in India. On the first day in order to seek stay against the order of transfer, the petitioner raised the plea of malafides and also the plea that there is nothing requiring him to be transferred to Bangalore. Initially malafides were imputed to three officers, who had been dismissed even before the order of transfer was passed. The petitioner subsequently named eight officers including the first three. His emphasis then shifted away from the first three officers. However, for the other three, he could not establish any link with the transfer order. Mr. Amit Dutta only communicated the transfer order. The allegation that he found irregularities done by Mr. Motwani has been denied by the respondent. The petitioner has thus been shifting his position from time to time. So far as Mr. Motwani is concerned, the respondent No. 2 has denied that the petitioner has ever found any irregularity in the activity of Mr. Motwani. Nor has it been established that Mr. Motwani influenced either Mr. Lokhande, who proposed the transfer and the CMD, who finally approved the same and passed the impugned order. The transfer order, therefore, cannot be said to be malafide unless the petitioner establishes malafides also on the part of Mr. Lokhande and the CMD. In the State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court categorically laid down that the allegations of malafides must be based on the concrete material and must inspire confidence of the court. The shifting stand of the petitioner has raised suspicion about the genuineness of his case. No concrete material has been placed before the court from which malafides on the part of Mr. Motwani can be ascertained. It will be wholly improper to interfere with the transfer order on such a feeble plea.

22. Thus inspite of taking all the pleas of the petitioner including those in the amendment application into consideration, I find that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. No useful purpose will be served by impleading Mr. Motwani or Mr. Amit Dutta. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. The interim order against transfer stands vacated. CM 12064/06 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the writ petition and CM 13957/06 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC also stand disposed of.