- (1.) M. Katju, J. By means of this peti tion the petitioner has challenged the im pugned order dated 27-1-1999 and the order dated 26-10-1998 and 24-11-1998. The petitioner has also prayed for quash ing the transfer order dated-22-12-1998.
(2.) THE petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 42224 of 1998 which has been disposed of by this Court by directing that the petitioner may make a repre sentation before the authority concerned vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Con sequently, the petitioner made a repre sentation which was rejected by order dated 12-1-1999 Annexure 1 to the peti tion. The petitioner was employed in the service of the O. N. G. C. and he is aggrieved against the impugned transfer order. His allegation is that the transfer order is mala fide and at the behest of Respondent No. 8 Sri S. H. A. Jafri, General Manager. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit it has been alleged that when the petitioner was posted in Keshav Dev Malviya Institute at Dehradun a complaint was made by the Head of the Institute against the petitioner because of his indiscipline and insubordination and misbehaviour with superiors. He made several complaints against Sri Kuldeep Chandra, who was Head of the Institute and Dr. Anil Garg who was Deputy Superintending Chemist. The petitioner created serious problems against these officials and fought with other colleagues in the S. E. M. Depart ment. Eleven officers reported about his misbehaviour to Sri Jafri. In these com plaints it was alleged that the petitioner indulges in misbehaviour and abuses. True copies of the complaints are Annexures CA-1 to CA-11 to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit it is alleged that on 3-8-1998 the petitioner fought with Dr. Sajid Jamal, Superintend ing Chemist during the course of meeting in the office of the General Manager and a written complaint was made by Dr. Sajid Jamal, against the petitioner. The Super intending Chemist Mr. Negi reported that he cannot control the petitioner and hence the petitioner was directed by Sri Jafri to report directly to him. Immediately there after the petitioner started moving files against the General Manager, Sri Jafri and made a press statement against him. True copy of the press statement is Annexure CA-12 to the counter-affidavit. In para graph 9 of the counter-affidavit it is al leged that the petitioner started making false complaint against the General Manager to various authorities of the O. N. G. C. and has prayed for vigilance en quiry against Sri Jafri. The Vigilance Department wrote to t he Director Techni cal that no case for enquiry is made out against Sri Jafri. Sri Jafri requested the Director Technical to send the petitioner back to his parent department (Explora tion ). The matter was discussed by the three Directors i. e. Director Technical, Director Exploration and Director Per sonnel and all the three Directors took a decision to remove the petitioner from S. E. M. Group for a temporary posting to the Institute of Drilling Technology at Dehradun with a clear understanding that he may be considered for transfer in the annual general transfer. True copy of the same is Annexure CA-13 to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 10 it is stated that on 2-12- 1998 the Director Technical has instituted an enquiry against the various charges of misconduct committed by the petitioner vide Annexure 14 to the counter-affidavit. It is alleged in para graph 11 that despite his transfer to his parent department the petitioner kept on working against Sri Jafri and this fact was brought to the notice of the competent authority by Sri Jafri vide Annexure CA 15. Sri C. VS. Negi, Superintendent Chemist submitted a report against the petitioner dated 2-9-1998 vide Annexure 16. In paragraph 12 of the counter-af fidavit it is stated that the petitioner has been transferred in the annual general transfer on the decision of the three Direc tors i. e. Technical. Exploration and Per sonnel. A large number of affidavits have been filed in this case and we have perused the same. Transfer is an exigency of service and hence we cannot interfere with the transfer order. The transfer was an ad ministrative consideration. We find no mala fides against the respondents and hence it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;