D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging an order of transfer. The petitioner is an LDC in the Rajasthan High Court and he was formerly employed at the main seat of the High Court, but by the order dated September 22, 1977 he was transferred to the High Court Bench at Jaipur, in the same capacity.
(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was transferred by way of punishment and further that the transfer order was passed malafide. In my view, the mere transfer of an employee without anything more cannot be considered as a punishment In the present case, neither the order of transfer of the petitioner nor the circumstances attendant there to show that it was intended that the petitioner should be penalised and the transfer does not appear to have been effected by way of punishment. As regards malafides, the allegations made by the petitioner are quite vague. The only two allegations which appear to have been made by the petitioner are (a) that the petitioner had filed an appeal against his alleged super session on September 19, 1977 and the transfer was effected because on account of the filing of the said appeal, the then Acting Chief Justice of this Court felt displeased, (b) that the petitioner was associated with an official, Shri. Jai Dayal, who was degraded and transferred by the then Chief Justice, as he was displeased with him and the petitioner was also put to the same fate in consequence and was transferred on that ground.
(3.) SO far as the first allegation is concerned there appears to be no valid reason to accept the petitioner's contention, The appeal against the super session of the petitioner, by promoting some other LDCs as UDCs, might have been filed by the petitioner during the same period, but the petitioner has not given any reason at all as to why the then Acting Chief Justice would have felt displeased on the petitioner's filing an appeal in the promotion of some UDCs It has not been alleged by the petitioner that the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice was interested in any one LDC of other official. More over, either the former Deputy Registrar (Administration) nor the then Acting Chief Justice have been personally made parties to the writ petition and such an allegation appears co have been made recklessly and is without any substance The same is, therefore, rejected.;