SWATANTERKUMAR,C.J.:- By this judgment, we shall dispose of the above three writ petitions as common issues arise for determination in all the writ petitions on somewhat similar facts. For the purpose of convenience, we would refer to the facts of Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1430 of 2007.

2. The petitioner joined the services of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, for short “MHADA” on 21st April, 1980. He was promoted to the rank of Deputy Engineer in the year 1989. He was then posted in the Vigilance Laboratory under the authority in Mumbai since 9th October, 2006, where he continues to work. Vide order dated 30th June, 2007, the petitioner has been transferred and posted at Nagpur in the office of the authority. The said order is at Exhibit-C which reads as under:

“By taking into consideration administrative interest, your transfer is being made in vacant post of Deputy Engineer in Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board in view of Government's above referred letter dated 30.06.2007. You immediately resume at the place of appointment. On your relieving, if you avoid resuming at the place of new appointment within prescribed period or proceeding on leave, disciplinary action will be taken against you, which may be noted.

The said orders will come into effect forthwith.

With approval of the Deputy Chairman & CEO/Authority.

Sd/

(Kailas Jadhav)

Secretary/Authority.

“3. This order of transfer is questioned by the petitioner in the present case and other petitioners in the connected writ petitions, who are also similarly situated, on the ground that the authority has framed (sic) an Act called “the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005” (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) under the provisions of which a person cannot be posted out unless he has completed his tenure of posting for a period of three years and he could only be transferred for exceptional circumstances or special reasons, and that too with the approval of the next highest authority. The order of transfer does not indicate any reason, much less special reasons, and as such the order is liable to be set aside. Secondly, it is stated that the petitioner was working from the years 2001 to 2006 in the Transit Camp Division, Sub-Division No.II, Pratiksha Nagar, Sion-Koliwada, Mumbai-400022, under the Mumbai Building Repair & Reconstruction Board, as a Deputy Engineer. While he was working in the said Transit Camp, he was served with a show cause notice dated 26th May, 2006 and was directed to explain his conduct. Though, according to the petitioner, the show cause notice was served upon him and 22 other officers, it was due to personal grudge of some officers against him on account of differences in trade union activities and which was based upon an alleged report by the Vigilance Department in the year 2004 wherein it was pointed out that certain irregularities in the special and current repairs in the transit camps were found. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice on 31st August, 2006. According to the petitioner, the explanation was found to be satisfactory and the respondents accepted the same.

3-A. The petitioner's work was being supervised by Executive Engineer and Deputy Chief Engineer and finally the Chief Engineer or by the superiors. Under him, there were Junior Engineers and other persons who initiated the proposed sanctions for the repair work. Certain actions were contemplated but only the petitioner was singled out, while nothing was done to the seniors or juniors of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the order of transfer is arbitrary and in violation of the statutory provisions.

4. The petitioner also questions the correctness of this order on the ground that the order is in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act which mandates that not more than thirty per cent of the employees should be transferred from any office or Department at a tim