Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42901 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8118 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahendra Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 4.7.2025 as well as relieving order dated 16.7.2025 whereby petitioner currently employed as a Sweeper has been transferred from Kohrawan to Laxmanpur. 3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner had been transferred by means of order dated 6.7.2024 but soon after his joining, he was again transferred vide order dated 17.4.2025 and upon compliance of joining, has again been transferred for the third time within almost one year by means of impugned order. It is further submitted that aforesaid aspect clearly indicate the fact that petitioner being a class-IV employee is being unnecessarily harassed by frequent transfers. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided instructions dated 24.7.2025, a copy of which is taken on record, and as per which, it has been indicated that petitioner was transferred on account of several complaints being made against him not only with regard to his work but with regard to his conduct as well. 5. It has also been stated in the written instructions that transfers were effected on account of his own request. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is thus adverted by opposite parties that transfer has been made as a mode of punishment on account of complaints made against him. It is admitted that as yet no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. The aforesaid aspect has clearly been adverted by Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 592; wherein it has been clearly stated that transfer cannot be effected as a mode of punishment. 7. The second aspect that transfer has been effected as per petitioner's own request also stands belied by the fact that none of the transfer orders indicate that it was as per request of petitioner. 8. The only request indicated in the instructions is of January 2025 but it does not appear from the record any transfer order was effected either in January or February 2025. 9. In view of the discussions made above, impugned transfer order dated 4.7.2025 passed by District Panchayt Raj Officer, Sitapur is hereby quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 10. Petition succeeds and is allowed. 11. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench