The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer is an exigency of service, and interference by the court is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness and malice.

JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - By means of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by respondent no.2 (contained as annexure no.8 to this writ petitioner.)

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) Award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Mukhya Sewika/Supervisor in Department of Women Empowerment and Child Development through Sub-ordinate Services Selection Commission in the year 2013. She joined her services on 05.04.2013 at Block Laksar, District Haridwar. The main job of the Mukhya Sewika/supervisor is to look after Anganwadi Centre in village and the petitioner is having charge of almost ten villages, as such to the children below the age of three years under the schemes are given packet of food containing Dalia, Chana, Gur, peanut, Chane ki Dal and for the cost of these packets Rs. 150/- are insured; these type of packets are also given to the pregnant women, lacerating women and women above age of sixty years and the children from three years to five years are provided cooked food at the Anganwadi centre. The amount used in expenditure of making food packets are directly send to the account of Anganwadi Karyakartis, as such some NGO's have been formed in villages under the name of self help group and these NGO's are assembling these food packets, although, the food packets does not have good quantity and quality and this was checked by the petitioner. Meanwhile, a complaint was sent to the Chief Minister by some resident of Laksar against the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The ADM Finance and Revenue, Haridwar-respondent no.3 was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Tehsildar Laksar issued notice to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner shall submit her explanation on or before 20.06.2019 before the respondent no.3 and shall appear on 21.06.2019. In compliance of the same, the petitioner submitted her explanation before respondent no.3 with complete details. Thereafter, on 09.07.2019, the respondent no.3 submitted his inquiry report stating therein that the allegations are not found true. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Tharali Chamoli on administrative ground by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 07.08.2019. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 2123 of 2013, this Court vide order dated 12.09.2019 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 07.08.2019, however, the liberty was granted to the respondents to pass a fresh transfer order in accordance with law. Thereafter, on 19.10.2019, another transfer order under provision of Section 18(4)(5) of the Transfer Act was passed, whereby the petitioner has again been transferred to Tharali District Chamoli on administrative ground. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the transfer order has been passed in violation of the Transfter Act, as the same has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would further submit that though all allegations were not found true against the petitioner in the inquiry but the petitioner has been transferred, therefore, there is violation of provision of Section 18 (5) of Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Transfer Act, 2017"). He would further submitted that the order dated 19.10.2019 is violative of the Court's order dated 12.09.2019 as the transfer order dated 07.08.2019 has already been quashed. He would further submit that the order dated 19.