Rajib Bhuyan v. State of Assam) I have also perused the Hon & Ors.

as Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned SC, ASEB. This writ petition is directed against Annexure-A order dated 04.04.201 2 followed by Annexure-F order dated 21.05.2012. By the first order the petition er has been transferred and posted in the same capacity in the office of the Sub -Divisional Engineer, Donkamokam Electrical Sub-Division. Presently he is servi ng at Sub-Divisional Engineer, Bokajan Electrical Sub-Division. The petitioner had earlier approached this court assailing the said tran sfer order by filing W.P.(C) No. 2095/2012. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 04.05.2012 granting liberty to the petitioner to make representatio n against the said order. It was further provided that in the event of making su ch a representation, the authority shall decide the matter by passing a speaking order. In consideration of the said order dated 04.05.2012 passed by this Court as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner, the authority in the ASEB has passed the order dated 21.05.2012 which is quoted below: OFFICE ORDER Perused the representation dated 08.05.2012 submitted by Shri Rajib Bhuyan, Bill Clerk of Bokajan Electrical Sub-Division, APDCL (caz), Kokajan in pursuance of the Order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No. 2095/20 12 (Rajib Bhuyan vs. State of Assam & ors.) I have also perused the Hon’ble Court’s order in question. Also, perused the report dated 17.05.2012 submitted by the Deputy Genera l Manger, KANCH Electrical Circle, APDCL (CAZ), Diphu in the matter of transfer of Shri Bhuyan and other relevant records as well. It is seen that lots of complaints of non-performance and misbehaviour against S hri Bhuyan were received by the Deputy General Manager from the public as well a s consumers under Bokajan Electrical Sub-Division. A section of Assamese Newspap ers have already reported all these acts of Shri Bhuyan. Therefore, in the inter est of Company’s work the Deputy General Manger, KANCH Electrical Circle vide hi s Order No. 34 dated 04.04.2012 had transferred Shri Bhuyan from Bokajan Electri cal Sub-Division to Donkamokam El. Sub-Division. From the above, it is apparent that transfer order in respect of Shri Bhuyan was passed in the interest of Company’s work as on administrative reasons. In such circumstances, the undersigned finds no ground to interfere with the transfer or der passed by the Deputy General Manger, Shri Bhuyan shall, therefore, comply wi th transfer order immediately. The representation of Shri Rajib Bhyan, Bill Clerk is disposed of accordingly. Chief General Manger (D) APDCL (CAZ), Ghy-1 (cid:29) Sd/- According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned transfer order dated 21.05.2012 having attributed non-performance and misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner, the same is punitive in nature and thus liable to be set as ide. He has placed reliance on the decision reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 (Somesh Tiwary vs. Union of Inida) On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned SC, ASEB has submitted that transf er being an incident of service and the petitioner having been transferred in th e exigencies of service and in absence of any allegation of malafide exercise of power, this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with the impugned order. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea rned counsel for the parties. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned transfer order dated 04.04.2012 was disposed of directi ng the authority to dispose of the representation by passing a speaking order. S uch a course of action was adopted having regard to the limited scope of interfe rence exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of transfer of an employee from one establishment to another. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner ma de Annexure-E representation dated 08.05.2012 highlighting the domestic problems including the plea that his seven years old minor son is a school going child a nd thus, requires attention of the father, i.e. the petitioner. The authority in consideration of such representation and the order pass ed by this Court, has passed the above quoted order dated 21.05.2012. The order reflects that there are lot of complaints of non-performance and misbehaviour a gainst the petitioner. Such factors could very well form the ground of transfer of an employee from one place to another. It is for the employer to decide as to what course of action is to be taken. Normally two courses are adopted, one by way of initiation of departmental proceeding and the other by way of transfer of the incumbent from one place to another. If the authority took recourse to the second option, no fault can be attributed. In Somesh Tiwary (supra), the petitioner was earlier transferred to Shi llong which was a harsh posting and his second transfer was to Ahmedbad which wa s (cid:28)less harsh posting (cid:29). The question involved in the said case was as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the action was bonafide exercise of power. Observing that malafide action are of two kinds - malice in fact and sec ondly malice in law, the Apex Court considering the facts and circumstances of t he case, held that it was a case of malice in law. It was found that there were anonymous complaints and the order of transfer was passed in lieu of punishment . The transfer order was passed on the material which was non-existent. Unlike the said case, in the instant case, the employer has chosen to transfer t he petitioner in the exigencies of service. As observed in Somesh Tiwary (supra) , it is one thing to say that employer is entitled to pass the order of transfer in administrative exigencies, but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. What the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised is that the impugned transfer order is in lieu of punishment. I am afraid, the decision on which he has placed reliance is out of context. The authority having found that there is non-performance and misbeh aviour on the part of the petitioner, it is well within its jurisdiction to deal with the matter appropriately in public interest. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugn ed order and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.