( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) BOTH the parties have filed detailed pleadings and also documents in support of their respective contentions. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and we proceed to decide this petition finally.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed in respondent No. 1 Corporation as Assistant Cashier in April, 1966 and in due course was promoted as Accountant in 1984 and at the relevant time he was posted at Jammu office of respondent No. l as Accountant. He was transferred from Jammu to Udaipur vide office Order dated 20. 12. 1993 which was duly served on him and in pursuance thereof he was relieved from there on 22. 12. 1993. He did not report at Udaipur. On the other hand he made representation dated 22. 12. 1993 against this transfer which was followed by 2/3 more representations but his request was not acceded to and he was directed to report for duty at Udaipur which he did not do. A charge sheet dated 8. 9. 1994 was issued for not complying the transfer order and in due course disciplinary inquiry was held by an Enquiry Committee which submitted their report to the authority concerned. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner. Before any further decision could be taken and without submitting reply to that show cause notice the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging both his transfer order as well as the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that the transfer order is malafide and an act of victimisation because he was a Local Secretary of the Union of the Workers and Vice-President of the main Union of the workers of the respondent and he had high-lighted certain financial irregularities committed by Officers of the respondent Corporation in connection with the awarding of transport contract favouring certain contractor and that contract was set aside by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in a writ petition filed by a group of contractors. It is also pleaded that the petitioner being Office bearer of the Trade Union is a protected employee and could not be transferred against the settlement arrived at between the management and the workmen and also because of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It is also contended that because of family difficulties of the petitioner he should not have been transferred especially because his wife was a patient of Cancer and was under treatment at Batra Hospital, New Delhi and he had to take her there for periodical check up and treatment, besides having two daughters; one was doing her C. A. Course at Jammu and the other was studying there and the transfer order was illegal and without jurisdiction otherwise. He has also challenged the disciplinary enquiry held against him and has raised several grounds with respect to the manner in which the enquiry against him was conducted.

( 5 ) ON behalf of respondents, Shri J. L. Seth, Respondent No. 4 who had issued the transfer order has filed the counter affidavit. It is denied that the transfer order has been passed on account of any malafides and/or by way of victimisation, and it is pleaded that it was passed on account of exigencies of business and on administrative grounds, inter-alia because there was no Accountant available at AFS, Udaipur where the petitioner was transferred, and no substitute was necessary for him at Jammu, that he was doing business in the name of his wife at Jammu and a number of complaints had been received against him from other workmen/employees. It is also denied that the officers concerned of the respondent had favoured any particular contractor in award of transport contract. Other pleas taken have also been denied. Reliance has inter-alia been placed on:

(1) Pushpa Gupta Vs. Engineers India Ltd. (1994)56 DLT 735. (2) Trilok Chand Vs. NIDC (1994) 55 DLT 157. (3) Manoharlal Vs. State of Punjab 1984 (1)LU 193. (4) Union ofindia and Others Vs. S. L. Abbas 1993