HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11935 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 27.08.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred to District Lalitpur. Also under challenge is relieving order dated 01.09.2025. 3. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed on the basis of a report submitted to authority and has been passed as a measure of punishment and not in administrative exigency and is therefore against judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and othes [(2009) 2 SCC 592]. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 13.10.2025, which are taken on record and as per instructions, an enquiry was earlier instituted against petitioner in which petitioner was found guilty of all the charges levelled against him in the enquiry report dated 16.04.2025, due to which vide order dated 04.07.2025, petitioner was punished with punishment of 'censure'. It is submitted that the aforesaid enquiry and punishment order were passed in separate proceedings and impugned order has been passed on the basis of public interest and does not have any co-relation with the earlier enquiry proceedings and therefore it cannot be said that impugned order has been passed as a measure of punishment. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupam Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shubham Kumar (Pno-192466989) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that impugned order of transfer dated 27.08.2025 has been passed on the basis of report submitted by the Police Commissioner, Lucknow. Although the said report is not on record, but it is appended with written instructions supplied to learned State Counsel. A perusal of aforesaid report dated 19.08.2025 indicates that a recommendation has been made for transfer of petitioner on the basis of punishment order dated 04.07.2025. 6. It is therefore evident that impugned order of transfer has been passed as a measure of punishment due to the earlier enquiry proceedings concluded against him. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra), has held that transfer can be affected in administrative exigencies, but not as a mode of punishment. Relevant paragraph is as follows:- "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. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of case, it is thus evident that impugned order of transfer has been passed as a measure of punishment and is in violation of law enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court. WRIA No. 11935 of 2025 2 8. Considering aforesaid aspects, impugned order of transfer dated 27.08.2025 as well as relieving order dated 01.09.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders pertaining to transfer of petitioner in annual routine transfers on administrative ground and not on grounds of any punishment. 9. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. 10. Parties to bear their own costs. October 13, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 11935 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench