The central legal point established in the judgment is that unless an employee transfer violates statutory rules or is issued with malafide intent, the courts cannot interfere with such administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

V.K. SHUKLA, J.

1. In the present Intra Court appeal, challenge has been made to the order 26-04-2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner has been allowed.

2. The respondent/petitioner, who is an employee of the appellant company working as Systems Expert in the work of erection, testing and commissioning of transmission systems filed a writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 13-03-2018, whereby he has been transferred from Bhopal to Gwalior and also the order dated 19-04-2018, whereby the petitioner's representation against the transfer order has been rejected. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had preferred W.P.No.6403/2018 against the transfer order dated 13-03-2018 which was disposed of by the order dated 20-03-2018 with a direction to the appellants to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The Court had also directed that till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the operation of impugned order dated 13-03-2018 was directed to be stayed and the petitioner was allowed to work at Bhopal.

3. The petitioner submitted representation and the same was rejected. The said order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the order has been issued in malafide exercise of power. Being confronted with the fact that the petitioner has not impleaded any officer of the appellant company in personal capacity alleging malafide. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner submitted that he has not alleged allegation of malafide against any individual but the order suffers from legal malice. To bolster his submission, he relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (2009)2 SCC 592 and also the judgment passed in the case of Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others (2010) 9 SCC 437.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has quashed the order of rejection of the representation against the transfer order and made observation that the impugned order was passed in a cavalier manner without any application of mind. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit over as an Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that there was no material to draw an inference that the appellant company had any malafide intention . The writ petitioner is working as a systems expert in the work of erection, testing and commissioning of transmission systems and there are several works of erection, testing and commissioning of transmission systems which are being undertaken and being planned in the Gwalior region and therefore, on administrative ground, the petitioner has been posted in Gwalior region. They have further stated that on earlier occasion on compassionate ground and looking to the difficulties of the petitioner that his wife is suffering from mental disease physical disorder and was undergoing treatment, he was transferred from Ratlam to Bhopal. But, since he has filed divorce case against his wife and now his wife and child are no longer residing with him, therefore, the writ petitioner has been transferred from Bhopal to Gwalior.

5. In the case of Kalabharati Advertising(supra), the Apex Court was dealing with an issue of "legal malice" and "malice in law" and held that the State is under obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice. “Legal malice" or " malice in law" means something done without lawful excuse. It is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. It is further held that it means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of