By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petitions.

2. This order shall also dispose of connected Writ Petition No. 979 (SB) of 2013 as both these petitions originate in identical facts connected with transfer orders passed as a result of controversies regarding alleged irregularities in construction of residential buildings of subordinate Court, Mau.

3. Writ Petition No. 228 (SB) of 2013 has been filed for quashment of: (i) the order/letter No. 9291-94/QF-A/001 dated 5.2.2013 whereby the petitioner (Yogendra Giri) who was working as Project Engineer, U.P. Processing and Construction Cooperative Federation Limited (for short, ‘PACFED’), Construction Division, Azamgarh, has been attached to Headquarters and (ii) order/letter No. 9295-99/QF-A-001 dated 5.2.2013 by which respondent No. 3 (Vinay Kumar Singh) who was working as Assistant Engineer has been transferred to PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh, and has been given the designation of Project Engineer in place of the petitioner.

4. It appears that some letter was written by one Sri Surendra Prasad Mishra, Member of Legislative Assembly to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to hold inquiry. Thus, an inquiry was held by Additional Registrar (Admn.) and thereafter vide order dated 30.3.2011, the petitioner was removed from the civil construction work, Azamgarh, and was attached to PACFED Headquarters vide order dated 19.4.2011 passed by respondent No. 2. The said orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 812 (SB) of 2011 by the petitioner and the Court vide order dated 3.5.2011 stayed the operation of order dated 30.3.2011. Thus the petitioner was allowed to function as Project Engineer, PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh.

5. However, according to the petitioner, despite the orders of this Court, the respondents tried to dislodge him from the post of Project Engineer and he was transferred to Varanasi vide order dated 10.7.2012 which was also quashed by this Court vide the order dated 19.7.2012 in Writ Petition No. 1043(SB) of 2012.

6. As per further averments, one M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises, who was allotted contract of construction work by one Anil Pandey, Assistant Engineer, had not done the work satisfactorily and up to the mark, as such vide order dated 28.2.2012, the petitioner constituted a three member team to conduct inquiry and submit report, which was submitted on 3.3.2012 and a request was made to make deduction from the bills of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises. On 3.3.2012 itself, the petitioner passed order for recovery of Rs. 9,56,118=00 from the bills of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises and the contract was given to M/s. Ma Pitambara Traders on 4.3.2012. When Sri Vinod Tiwari, proprietor of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises was proceeded against for recovery, on 19.10.2012, he wrote a letter to the learned District Judge, Mau, who consequent thereupon called for comments of the petitioner and the petitioner vide letter dated 26.10.2012 apprised correct facts to the learned District Judge, Mau. In the meantime, recovery was made from the bills of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises and further a cash amount of Rs. 2,71,759=00 was also deposited by the proprietor of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises. The amount so realized was deposited in the account of PACFED on 3.11.2012.

7. According to the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Pandey and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively had committed financial irregularities in making payment to M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises and before the recovery proceeding was initiated against M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises, on being verified, even the bills submitted by this company were found to be tampered. The said bills were tried to be cleared in the name of M/s. Raj Kishore Singh. As such, the petitioner wrote letter dated 5.11.2012 to the Managing Director to take necessary action against Anil Kumar Pandey and Anil Kumar Yadav.

8. According to the petition