Transfer of an employee facing departmental inquiry to a far away place while transferring a similarly situated employee to a nearby location is malafide and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

1. - Since facts of both these petitions are common in character they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. In writ petition No. 4136/1998 charge sheets dated June 1, 1998 filed against the petitioners Arun Singh and P.P. Singh, are under challenge whereas order of transfer dated August 10, 1998 of petitioner Arun Singh from Jaipur to Chennai has been assailed in writ petition No. 4148/98.WRIT PETFIION NO. 4136/98:

3. The petitioners in writ petition No. 4136/98 averred that on Feb. 22, 19% a preliminary inspection was carried out by the petitioner Arun Singh with his senior colleague Petitioner P.P. Singh, of a fine M/s. Shivagrico Implements Ltd. Falna, for grant of licence to use ISI marks on POWRAH. On the basis of the inspection report of the petitioner the firm was granted licence which is still continuing. Thereafter inquiry was conducted malafidely at the behest of respondent No.2 and charge sheets dated June 1, 1998 issued against the petitioners are fabricated and concocted and the same have been issued on account of biased attitude and malafide intentions by and at the behest of Shri P.S. Das Director General, Bureau of Indian Standard New Delhi (Respondent No.2). The allegations of taking bribe against the petitioners in the charge sheets are based on conjectures and surmises without any material particulars. Detailed replies submitted by the petitioners against the show cause notices have been ignored deliberately since the respondent No.2, who is presently holding the highest office of the Bureau is adamant upon victimising the petitioners. While framing the charge sheets, the convincing replies of the petitioners have been brushed aside without any reason since the respondent No.2, who is the disciplinary authority as well as the head of Bureau, is acting with a biased attitude and malafide intentions. The impugned charge sheets deserve to be quashed, being arbitrary, discriminatory and malicious. The petitioners incorporated circumstances in pars 8 of the writ petition on account of which ego of respondent No.2 got hurt and he became annoyed with petitioner Arun Singh. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.2 spoiled the confidential report of the year 1990 but the said adverse entries were expunged by the then Director General. Several other instances showing the biased attitude of respondent No.2 towards petitioner Arun Singh have been narrated in para 9 of the writ petition and affidavit of Arun Singh has been filed in support of the facts narrated in the writ petition.

4. The respondents in their written statement denied the allegations of biased attitude and malafide intention. It is contended that the charge sheets have been issued on the basis of investigation carried on the basis of information/complaint received against the petitioners and the charges of misconduct were framed against them strictly in accordance with the Central Government instructions after seeking the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission which was duly considered and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1969 and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which are binding on all Bureau employees. The Enquiry Officer is an independent authority nominated by the Central Vigilance Commission. The petitioners have no cause of action to file the writ petition as they may place all the relevant facts before the inquiry officer. As the inquiry is in the process, it would be premature to give comments in respect of the facts. The investigations made by the Vigilance Department were comprehensive and covered all the aspects of the case. Counter affidavit of P.S. Das Respondent No.2 denying the allegations made against him, has also been filed along with the written statement.

5. In rejoinder the petitioners pleaded that the respondents have avoided the judicial scrutiny by this court. Not a single averment made in the writ petition ha