( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside order Annexure - "a", dated September 2, 1995, passed by the director General of Police, respondent No. 1 herein, by which the petitioner, who was serving as Police Inspector, Valsad, is transferred to Anti-Terrorist Squad ("a. T. S. " for short) and all consequential actions taken in pursuance of the said order, being illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector in 1972. He was promoted as Police Inspector ("p. I. " for short) in 1993. He was sent to A. T. S. by an order dated May 5, 1993. He completed his tenure successfully in A. T. S. which was for one-and-half years and thereafter, as per the policy of the government, he was given choice of posting as P. I. , Surat City in December, 1994. Without any reason whatsover, within a short span of less than four months, he was transferred to Valsad in April, 1995. According to the petitioner, with a view to accommodate Mr. V. B. Raval, respondent No. 5 herein, again by an order dated september 2, 1995, the respondent No. 5 was transferred to Valsad and the petitioner was asked to join A. T. S. That order is impugned by the petitioner in this petition.

( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner apprehended transfer and hence he approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 6980 of 1995, on August 31, 1995. At the admission stage, this Court (Coram : M. R. Calla, J.) passed the following order on September 6, 1995 :-". . . . . . . . . . THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, having argued the matter for some time, wants to withdraw the petition at this stage. The petition accordingly stands dismissed as withdrawn. . . . . . . . " (emphasis supplied) after the petition was disposed of, the petitioner has filed the present petition (Special civil Application No. 7737 of 1995) on September 11, 1995. This petition also came up for hearing before the same Court and the following order was passed : ". . . . . . . . . . . . Notice returnable by 18-9-1995. Direct service is permitted. . . " thereafter, the matter was placed for hearing before the Court from time to time and today the matter is argued before me.

( 4 ) MR. B. P. Tanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised various contentions. He submitted that the impugned order is mala fide and passed in colourable exercise of power inasmuch as the authorities wanted to oblige respondent no. 5 and with a view to accommodate him, the action is taken. The petitioner was frequently transferred. He is having brilliant career and had completed his term of one-and-half years in A. T. S. Then choice posting was given to him at Surat. There was no earthly reason thereafter to transfer him within a period of four months and that action was unlawful. But as an obedient employee, the petitioner gracefully accepted it. By the impugned order, now the petitioner is again asked to join A. T. S. It is clearly illegal, improper, malicious and ultra vires. Mr. Tanna submitted that though serious allegations have been levelled against the respondents, no affidavitin- reply is filed by the first respondent. Counter affidavit filed by other respondents does not specifically deal with averments and allegations levelled except bare and bald denial. My attention was invited by the learned Counsel to family circumstances of the petitioner and also his (i. e. petitioners) own ill-heath. For that purpose, reliance was placed on medical certificates issued by Governmental authorities. It was argued that charge was taken ex parte from the petitioner in contravention of rule 29 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 and the said action was also contrary to law. A complaint is made that with a view to favour respondent No. 5, D. O. letters were written by superior officers which is not their usual practice. On all these grounds, there is prima facie case in favour of the petit