R. M. Sahai, J.- - (1.) TRANSFER of a Government employee is incident of service. Therefore, it cannot be challenged on ground that rights under Article 14 or 16 or 311 are violated. However this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably-E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555. It was reiterated in V. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 955. The Hon'ble Court held, "It should be reasonable and fair and should apply to every body equally." An order of transfer, therefore, should not normally be interfered with except in those rare cases where it crosses the hardline which renders it vulnerable because of being unreasonable, unjust or unfair. "
(2.) THE scope of examination is, therefore, very limited as to if the order dated 1st June, 1987 suffers from any of these infirmities. Admittedly, the petitioner who is a confirmed Assistant Engineer was transferred at First Division Aligarh, Ganga Canal, Aligarh in July, 1985. Within a month he was required to hand over charge to one Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, who is alleged to have access to the Minister of Irrigation. Against this order the petitioner came to this Court and the operation of the order transferring him was stayed on 7th November, 1985. Things remained quiet for nearly one and half year. And on 27th July 1987 the order was withdrawan. Co-incidently within a month of the order of withdrawal the Secretary Irrigation wrote a letter on 20th May, 1987 to the Chief Engineer to transfer petitioner to distant place as serious irregularities had been found against officials posted at Ganga Canal against whom disciplinary proceedings were contemplated. THE follow up action was taken in pursuance of this direction by the Chief Engineer on 1st June, 1987. Therefore, it was not a routine or usual transfer order passed by the Head of the Department. But on the behest of government. Consequently it requires closer scrutiny. Unfortunately except the letter no attempt has been made to demonstrate that the order was issued by government to transfer petitioner for administrative exigency or in public interest. Even the copy of report or complaint has not been filed to establish that the decision of Government was actuated in the best interest. On the other hand the petitioner has filed copy of report submitted by the District Magistrate on 5th May, 1986 on falling down of a bridge on Karhal Nala constructed under supervision and direction of officials of Ganga Canal, Aligarh. Serious irregularities were pointed out against one Assistant Engineer and it was recommended that he should be suspended immediately. And one Executive Engineer and another Assistant Engineer were recommended to be transferred. The recommendation were acted upon and suspension was- passed in December, 1986 and transfer orders against those officials were passed in February and March 1987. But in the entire report there is no whisper against petitioner nothing has been found against him. The direction to transfer petitioner, therefore, was either under misapprehension or for reason which cannot be said to be reasonable. A Government, undoubtedly, is the best judge as how best the services of its employee can be utilised and at what place but the employee too has a right to seek protection that he was being victimised by resorting to transfer for oblique motive or the transfer order was unjust or unfair. Its intensity is more severe where the order is passed due to interference by higher authorities who themselves are not entitled to transfer but exercise their power unreasonably by curtailing the direction of those who are lower in hierarchy. Due to action of the Secretary the petitioner has been put at par with the other Assistant Engineer who was found, responsible for carelessness in construction of Karhal Nala and who for this negligence was tranferred. It was certainly unfair. The direction was unjust as in absence of any disciplinary proceedings contemplated against petitioner the very foundation of direction issued by the Secretary falls to pieces. Since the direction issued by Secretary is found to be bad the consequential order passed on it automatically falls. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 1st June, 1987 transferring petitioner from Aligarh to Roorkee is quashed. No costs. Petition allowed.;