Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was directly recruited to the category of Executive Officers of Panchayats more than a decade back: He has worked in various Panchayats. On 30-51974 he was transferred from Nediyiruppu Panchayat to Kattipparuthy Panchayat. In the Nediyiruppu Panchayat he had worked for about an year. He took charge in the Kattipparuthy Panchayat only on 12 71974. It is stated in the petition that he was able to take charge only on that day because the Executive Officer there was on medical leave The order of transfer has been marked in this case as Ext. P1. The petitioner has stated that though Ext. P1 states that the transfer of the petitioner and the then Executive Officer of the Kattipparuthy Panchayat is a mutual transfer this transfer was not on the request of the petitioner. 2. In the Kattipparuthy Panchayat, it is said, he had to take disciplinary action against the Office Head-clerk for his alleged failure to carry out orders and also for alleged insubordination. The Head-clerk was kept under suspension pending enquiry as per orders passed by the petitioner on 3121974 He states that the next day after suspension order, the petitioner was served with an order of the District Panchayat Officer, Malappuram, transferring him to Kondotty Panchayat. That order of transfer is marked as Ext. P-2; there also, it is stated, it is a case of mutual transfer. Here again this was not a transfer on the request of the petitioner. On 5121974 as directed in Ext. P-2 the petitioner gave charge to the Executive Officer, Irambliyam and joined duty at Kondotty, on 16121974. The second respondent who was the then Executive Officer at Kondotty who had been transferred to Kattipparuthy entered on medical leave and did not take change at his new station According to the petitioner, the second respondent was trying to get this transfer order cancelled. The second respondent, after the expiry of the period of his medical leave which was till 3112 1974 extended it upto 151-1975. 3. Within 20 days of the petitioner joining duty at Kondotty, a fresh transfer order dated 61 1975 was passed by the first respondent, transferring the petitioner to Kuzhimanna Panchayat and posting the second respondent to Kattipparuthy Panchayat, cancelling the earlier order Ext. P-2 by which the second respondent has been transferred to Kondotty Panchayat. 3. Within 20 days of the petitioner joining duty at Kondotty, a fresh transfer order dated 61 1975 was passed by the first respondent, transferring the petitioner to Kuzhimanna Panchayat and posting the second respondent to Kattipparuthy Panchayat, cancelling the earlier order Ext. P-2 by which the second respondent has been transferred to Kondotty Panchayat. It is stated in the Original Petition that no Executive Officer had till the date of filing of the petition posted to Kondotty Panchayat. The Executive Officer, Kuzhimanna Panchayat had entered on leave on 511975 and it is to his place the petitioner was posted. 4. The petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P-3 order alleging that the transfer order is made not for any administrative exigency or convenience but with ulterior motives. According to the petitioner, it is the result of a vindictive attitude taken by the authorities against him as he is an active worker and office-holder in the N.G.O. Union and in the Federation of State Employees and Teachers' Organisation. He alleges that because of his active association in these organisations the authorities are out to harass him and this order of transfer is a consequential step taken. 5. He further states that there is a convention in Government establishments by which no officer will be transferred from one station to another station before he has completed three years in the first station. It is further alleged by him that the second respondent and Shri Kunhimohammed at whose request he was originally transferred from Nediyiruppu Panchayat to Kattipparuthy Panchayat are active workers of the Kerala Panchayat Executive Officers' Association which has now taken a line of supporting the present Government. 6. In the counter filed by the second respondent it is stated that three of four of the Kondotty Panchayat members had made written representation to the District Panchayat Officer to the effect that they had no faith either in the ability or impartiality of the petitioner and that there is every likelihood of his using his office to advance the interests of his partymen only to the detriment of others and therefore the petitioner has to be transferred from Kondotty Panchayat. He denies that he is an active worker of the Kerala Panchayat Executive Officers' Association. He also denies, favouritism etc., alleged in the petition. 7. He denies that he is an active worker of the Kerala Panchayat Executive Officers' Association. He also denies, favouritism etc., alleged in the petition. 7. In the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent it is admitted that the petitioner is an active worker of the N. G. O. Union, that he had participated in the strike called by the N. G. O. Union for the period from 10-1-1973 to 4-3-1973, and that he had been arrested by the Kondotty Police for obstructing the loyal workers. However, it is stated, no action will be taken against any person for actively participating in an association of the employees. Action will be taken only, if there are errors and lapses in discharging the official functions. It is also stated in the counter that there is no hard and fast rule that transfer of Executive Officers can be made only after completing three years of service in a station. It is pointed out that the nature of work of the Executive Officer is a peculiar one and he has to win the confidence of the Panchayat members, President, Public and Staff of the Panchayat to perform his duties satisfactorily. The Executive Officers of Panchayats will be transferred from one station to another station either on their own request or on the request of the President, Members or Public. It is stated further, that in the democratic set up of the Panchayats due weight has to be given to the requests of the elected representatives of the local bodies. It is alleged that on all occasions the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of complaints against him. 8. In regard to his transfer from Kattiparuthy to Kondotty it is stated that it is ordered because there were complaints against the petitioner from the President of the Kattiparuthy Panchayat and also for administrative convenience It is stated that the transfer was not as a punishment. The petitioner did not enjoy confidence of the elected representatives of the Panchayat and therefore he was transferred. The petitioner's transfer from Kondotty Panchayat was ordered again, because of complaints received from elected representatives of the Panchayat. The petitioner did not enjoy confidence of the elected representatives of the Panchayat and therefore he was transferred. The petitioner's transfer from Kondotty Panchayat was ordered again, because of complaints received from elected representatives of the Panchayat. It is stated in the counter of the first respondent that the Executive Officer should normally work only with support of the Panchayat Members, President and Office Staff and the transfers as regards the petitioner were effected only in the best interests of the administration. It is also stated that the petitioner could have preferred appeal in the matter before the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Calicut or the Director of Panchayats, Trivandrum under S 33(4) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any remedy by coming to the High Court directly without resorting to the normal remedial measures as provided under the statutes. The allegation of vindictive or ulterior motives in the matter of transfer is also denied. 9. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. It is stated therein that the petitioner had worked in 12 stations in the 11 years of his service and in most of the cases his transfers were made not for administrative reasons but really to accommodate Executive Officers who were in the good books of the superior officers or who had influence in a higher circle. It is the petitioner's contention that in the case of majority of Executive Officers of a Panchayat they have been subjected to innumerable and unjustifiable transfers, because they refused to tow the line which the elected representatives wanted them to follow against rules and established procedures. He asserts that his transfer from Kattipparuthy Panchayat was on account of the disciplinary action initiated against the Head-clerk of the said Panchayat who was a favourite of the President of the Panchayat. It is stated that he was at Kondotty only for 20 days. During this period there was only one meeting of the Panchayat held on 3111975 and there was no occasion for them to form any opinion about the petitioner. In 1965 he had additional charge of Kondotty Panchayat for about five months when the same elected members were there. During this period there was no complaint against him and he had improved the financial position of the Panchayat by making revenue collection effectively. 10. In 1965 he had additional charge of Kondotty Panchayat for about five months when the same elected members were there. During this period there was no complaint against him and he had improved the financial position of the Panchayat by making revenue collection effectively. 10. In Para.4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, dated 2nd February, 1975 he had cited a large number of instances, where, particular Executive Officers have been working in particular Panchayats for number of years together. In that he says that his transfer is just to accommodate the second respondent who has managed to get the same by improper means. 11. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and going through the records, I am of the view that the impugned order calls for interference by this court. No doubt, it will not be proper for this court to intervene in. orders of transfer etc., made by competent authorities for administrative exigencies or other valid reasons. A Government Servant is not entitled to say that he should be allowed to continue in a particular station. When he joins service, he should know that he will have to work at different stations and that he would be liable for transfer at any time. However, that does not mean that this court has no jurisdiction to intervene even in a case of transfer, where it is apparently clear that the same is not made for administrative reasons but is really a case of harassment of the Government Official concerned for some reason or other or the transfer is the result of manoeuvring by interested parties who want to see a particular employee out of the place. It is certainly a quite correct approach that in the democratic set up of the Panchayats, due weight should be given to the requests of the elected representatives of the local bodies. However, if the Panchayat members want a transfer of the Executive Officer merely because of his doing his duty correctly or because he has refused to go against the normal rules and procedure in particular matters, then certainly the concerned authority should not act to merely satisfy the Panchayat members and transfer the innocent employee. That will certainly undermine the efficient working of the establishment and the morale of the employees. That will certainly undermine the efficient working of the establishment and the morale of the employees. In such cases, it will have to be held that the transfer is an abuse of the administrative power of the authority. The authority is not motivated on account of administrative exigencies but by an improper purpose that is merely carrying the favour of the members of the Panchayat without going into the reasons that prompted the members of the Panchayat to seek the transfer. In cases of abuse of power by administrative authority, this court will certainly step in. As Professor Wade in his well-known book on Administrative Law points out 2nd Edn. P. 47, "even if the authority had undoubted power to do something, there may be duties as to how it is to be done. The ultra vires doctrine is therefore not confined to cases of plain excess of power; it also governs abuse of power, as where something is done for the wrong reasons, or by the wrong procedure. In law the consequences are exactly the same; an improper motive, or a false step in procedure, make an administrative act just as illegal as does a flagrant excess of authority." That is why, Lord Denning said, in Merricks and another v. Nott-Bower and others, 1964 W. L. R.702 at p. 707 "In the light of these regulations, the plaintiffs say that the power of transfer is only to be used as part of the administrative machinery of the force so as to ensure efficiency. It cannot be used as a means of punishment. In their cases, they say, the power of transfer was misused and abused. It was used as a disciplinary measure to punish them, and, by misusing it in this way, those in authority were able to by-pass all the disciplinary machinery so carefully set up to ensure a fair hearing. They were condemned and punished, they say, without being heard. Such being the case made, I am not prepared to say that it is unarguable. It is a well-known principle of our law that any powers conferred by statute or regulation on an executive or administrative authority must be exercised in good faith for the purpose for which they are granted. They must not be misused or abused by being applied to an ulterior purpose. It is a well-known principle of our law that any powers conferred by statute or regulation on an executive or administrative authority must be exercised in good faith for the purpose for which they are granted. They must not be misused or abused by being applied to an ulterior purpose. Whether that principle applies here or not, I do not say, all I do say is that if the plaintiffs allege, as they do, that this was a misuse of the power of transfer that it was used, not for the purpose of good administration and efficiency but for the motive of punishment they have an arguable case which they are entitled to have tried by the courts." This decision has been quoted with approval by Justice Mathew, in Abdul Kader v. Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Ernakulam,1967 KLT 354. 12. It is for very valid reasons that in the manner of transfer of employees on the request of the Panchayat a specific provision has been made in S.33 (4) of the Kerala Panchayats Act. It is said that the Government may, at any time, transfer an executive officer from a Panchayat and shall do so if such transfer is recommended by a resolution of the Panchayat passed at a special meeting called for the purpose and supported by the votes of not less than two thirds of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat. 13. Therefore, according to me, it will be improper to transfer an officer merely because the President or some members of the Panchayat wants it, without the authority who is making the transfer, going into the merits of the complaint made against the Executive Officer. Such transfers would really amount to punishment of the Executive Officer. A punishment can be only inflicted in accordance with the relevant provisions and statutory rules. Nor could the punishment be meted out without affording the Panchayat Executive Officer sufficient opportunity to meet the case against him. Considered in the light of the above, Ext. P-3 is clearly ultra vires and illegal and I would set aside Ext. P-3. The Original petition is thus allowed; but I make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Allowed.