D.N. Jha, J. - (1.) The petitioner has directed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order of transfer from Faizabad to Hamirpur.
(2.) On motion being presented on 24 March 1987, we had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the relevant record relating to the transfer of the petitioner. In pursuance of our direction, the record was produced before the Court and we perused the relevant instructions.
(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he should have been provided an opportunity in case anything adverse to his conduct had been reported to the authorities and that having not been done, the transfer suffers from vice of mala fide. He has also alleged that the sheet- anchor behind his transfer is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tahsil Sadar, District Sultanpur, who poisoned the ears of District Magistrate, Sultanpur, and in turn, the District Magistrate was misguided for reporting against the petitioner to the Government and the facts mentioned in bis report were without any foundation, therefore, the transfer was with a mala fide intention. He urged before us that the District Magistrate, Faizabad, had not made any report against the conduct or working of the petitioner and, therefore, the Government had no reason to transfer the petitioner to Hamirpur. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have no hesitation in observing that so far as the present transfer is concerned none of these arguments are available to the petitioner. The transfer is made on administrative ground and in our opinion, there was ample material before the Government to order for the transfer of the petitioner from Faizabad. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order suffers from vice of mala fide. The District Magistrate is supposed to be the custodian of law and order. If the petitioner had any trouble with respect to his property in his home village, he could have well referred it to the authorities and we are confident, his request would not have been treated lightly and the District Magistrate would not have looked into the whole affair dispassionately. There is not an iota of averment in the writ petition to indicate that the petitioner acted with prudence as is expected from a respectable Government servant. Further, it is not necessary to dwell at length upon the conduct of the respective parties and it would suffice to say that the order is not a mala fide one which may call for interference of this Court.;