( 1 ) PETITIONER, by this writ petition, seeks stay of the impugned order of transfer dated 29. 3. 2004, followed by a relieving order dated 28. 4. 2004, appearing at pages 18 and 27 of the paper book respectively.

( 2 ) PETITIONER had joined respondent No. 1/ioc in the year 1977 as a Stenographer. He remained in the staff category up to 1986 and thereafter was inducted in the official cadre. Petitioner made considerable progress in his career. He rose to the current position of Manager, training and Development and is posted at New Delhi. Petitioner claims to have earned 7 promotions in his career. To improve his career prospects, he attained additional educational qualifications and completed his post Graduation, Bachelor in Law and Master in Law, during his service tenure.

( 3 ) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of transfer as being accentuated by mala fides, being discriminatory in nature. He submits that respondent is sought to be victimized on account of bias of the Executive Director (Finance), respondent No. 2 herein. Vindictiveness, it is urged is apparent from the fact that petitioner was sought to be proceeded against departmentally on a charge of having torn an official paper (Office Order), while in fact it was a photocopy of a waste paper. Respondent subsequently did not pursue the charge. He submits that an attempt was made to transfer the petitioner from New delhi to Haldia in 1991. Petitioner protested against this transfer and sought to be retained on compassionate grounds and his wife being a working woman posted in delhi. The Management accepted the plea and petitioner was given a nearby posting at Panipat which charge petitioner assumed on 14. 5. 2001.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a matter of policy, respondent No. 1 generally does not transfer promotee officers. Several instances of personnel occupying similar administrative positions, who have been stationed for more than 10-15 years in the same station have been cited in the writ petition. Petitioner submits that the plea of mala fides is not an after thought. Pursuant to the earlier order of transfer in 2001, petitioner has been consistently protesting against the bias exhibited by respondent No. 2 and has recorded this fact in his self-appraisal reports. Petitioner has specifically mentioned about victimization. The self appraisal reports containing these remarks has been reviewed by the petitioner s superior Reviewing Officer and by Re-reviewing Officer. In these circumstances, petitioner prays that the Court would not permit such a transfer. Learned counsel urged that the plea of petitioner s requirement at Haldia to expand the Training and Development Programme is a mere ruse. Besides, there are five other officers available at haldia.

( 5 ) MR. VALMIKI Mehta, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner handed over in Court a list of 17 officers, who had joined the organisation in Delhi, faridabad, Haldia etc. , between the years 1973 to 1977, and have remained posted at their respective stations, without being transferred at all. He further submits that these officers are also Grade-D Officers like the petitioner. He submits that petitioner s experience has been primarily administrative and in audit. He has not been exposed to Training and Development courses or worked as an Instructor or Trainer in the Training and development Programme. Besides, the Panipat Refinery has only two officers in the Training and Development section, as against 5 in Haldia. These submissions are primarily aimed at showing that the transfer of the petitioner is vindictive and not in the exigency in service.

( 6 ) ON the plea of mala fides, he further submitted that petitioner had given internal audit report, concerning the disbursement of House Building advances, wherein certain irregularities in the case of one of the protegees of respondent No. 2 were pointed out, which we