HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13672 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 17th October 2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred from one place to another to a different block within the same district. Also under challenge is the modification order dated 31st October 2025 and the subsequent modification order dated 18th November 2025. 3. It has been submitted that petitioner has been transferred quite evidently on the basis of complaints which were made against him and due to aforesaid facts, it has been indicated in the order that provisions of paragraph 5 (iii) & (iv) of the government order dated 6th May 2025 would be inapplicable upon petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari versus Union of India, 2009(2) SCC 592. to submit that transfer cannot be effected as a mode of punishment but only on the ground of administrative exigency or public interest which has not been indicated in the impugned order at all. 5. Learned state counsel has been provided written instructions dated 24th October 2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which it has been indicated that provisions of government order dated 6th May, 2025 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shiv Karan Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) would be inapplicable with regard to petitioner. It is further submitted that this is so because petitioner's transfer has been effected by approval granted by local competent authority as also on the basis of preliminary inquiry with regard to allegations levelled against petitioner. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident from perusal of order itself that transfer has been effected as a mode of punishment on the basis of complaints made against petitioner. The said aspect has clearly been adjudicated upon by Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) in the following manner:- "16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal." 7. In view of such enunciation of law, impugned orders have clearly been passed against the dictum of Supreme Court and therefore the impugned orders dated 17th October 2025, 31st October 2025 and 18th November 2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass appropriate orders with regard to the petitioner's transfer if required but only in administrative exigency or public interest 8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. November 25, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 13672 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench