State of West Bengal v. Chira Ranjan Shit — 1981 DIGILAW 366 (CAL)

Judgment Dutt, J. In this appeal the appellants, who are the State of West Bengal, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South Division), Calcutta, have challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Judge made absolute the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the respondent, Chira Ranjan Shit, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In the writ petition, the respondent challenged the validity of an order of transfer dated April 24, 1981, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and published in the Calcutta Police Gazette on April 25, 1981. By the said order of transfer the respondent was transferred from the post of the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station to the post of the Special Branch of the Calcutta Police, Lalbazar. By the said order six other Inspectors of Police were transferred. 3. The respondent, Chira Ranjan Shit is the officiating Inspector of the Calcutta Police. He was posted to the Karaya Police Station as its Officer-in-Charge on February 8, 1980. It is the case of the respondent that since the taking over of the charge of the Karaya Police Station by him as the Officer-in-Charge on February 8, 1980, he was being systematically interfered with by the leaders and supporters of the local committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxists) as, it is alleged, the respondent could not toe the line as indicated by the said so-called leaders and/or satisfy their whims and caprices. In support of the said allegation the respondent has relied on certain incidents as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the writ petition which are as follows :- "12 Your petitioner states that the instances of systematic interference in the functioning of your petitioner are patent and obvious from the facts stated hereunder :- (i) That since the joining of your petitioner at Karaya Police Station on 8.2. 1980 it has been noticed that some local Communist Party of India (Marxists) leaders and cadres were taking upper hand in each and every matter happening within the area and were trying to dictate the Officer-in-Charge of the Karaya Police Station to act in accordance with their dictate and/or behest. 1980 it has been noticed that some local Communist Party of India (Marxists) leaders and cadres were taking upper hand in each and every matter happening within the area and were trying to dictate the Officer-in-Charge of the Karaya Police Station to act in accordance with their dictate and/or behest. As your petitioner being a loyal servant to the cause of justice could not oblige the said leaders and cadres by acting in accordance with their dictate, the said leaders and cadres became enranged with your petitioner and thereafter they started interfering with every act of your petitioner by giving rise to a bitter relation between your petitioner as a loyal officer and the said leaders and cadres. (ii) That on 6.4.1980 there was disturbance at Samsul Huda Road within the jurisdiction of Karaya Police Station. In connection with the said disturbance, police personnel were immediately sent. The said police personnel on reaching the spot were assaulted by one Sri Badshah Alam, Secretary, Democratic Youth Federation Students Wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxists), Sashim Dutta, Bablu Chakrabarty, Jahar Sengupta alias Dasgupta and 20/30 other cadres and supporters of the Communist Party of India (Marxists) and in connection with the said unhappy and gruesome incident, a police case, being Karaya Police Station Case No. 90 dated 6.4.1980 under sections 147, 353 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code had to be initiated. On the basis of investigation carried on in this connection, a charge-sheet was duly submitted as required under law and the case in this regard is pending adjudication before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. (iii) That on 13.5.1980 some alleged cadres of the Communist Party of India (Marxists), namely, Jahar Sengupta alias Dasgupta, Bablu Chakrabarty being accompanied by some anti-social elements assaulted the police personnel who were discharging their statutory duties near Beckbagan. In regard to the said purported assault upon the police personnel a case, being Karaya Police Station case No. 118 dated 13.5.1980 was started under sections 148, 149, 336, 341, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet in regard to this case having been submitted, the case is pending adjudication before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. In regard to the said purported assault upon the police personnel a case, being Karaya Police Station case No. 118 dated 13.5.1980 was started under sections 148, 149, 336, 341, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet in regard to this case having been submitted, the case is pending adjudication before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. (iv) That on 8.9.1980 the said Badshah Alam, Secretary, Democratic Youth Front, Communist Party of India (Marxists), Calcutta District, came to Karaya Police Station and wanted to lodge a verbal complaint against one of the officers before your petitioner and the said Sri Badshah Alam insisted upon immediate action on the basis of such verbal and uncorroborated complaint. Your petitioner, as Officer-in-Charge of the Karaya Police Station, however, requested the said Sri Badshah Alam to lodge a formal complaint in writing, but the said Sri Alam flatly refused to put his allegation in writing for reasons best known to him. Thereafter, a demonstration was staged in front of the Police Station by the leaders, cadres and followers of the local Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxists). During such demonstration immediate transfer of the Officer-in-Charge, meaning your petitioner and the officer against whom the alleged verbal complaint was lodged, was demanded. The situation took such a turn that to combat the demonstrators, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) had to be informed who rushed down to Karaya Police Station for pacifying the demonstrators and to bring the situation under control. (v) That on 21.11.1980 Sri Shyamal Sen, Sashim Dutta, posing themselves as Trade Union leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxists) along with their followers and supporters assaulted one of the officers and a constable attached to Karaya Police Station on Dilkhusa Street in front of 'Prince Bakery' when the said Police Officer and the Constable went to convey the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Alipore, under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the purported assault was an outright interference with the due discharge of statutory duties by the concerned police personnel and was a serious offence, a case being Karaya Police Station Case No. 280 dated 21.11.1980 had to be launched under sections 147, 353, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code." 4. As the purported assault was an outright interference with the due discharge of statutory duties by the concerned police personnel and was a serious offence, a case being Karaya Police Station Case No. 280 dated 21.11.1980 had to be launched under sections 147, 353, and 342 of the Indian Penal Code." 4. It is alleged that from the facts stated above it would be patently obvious that all through the functioning of the respondent has been sought to be interfered with by the local leaders of the CPI (M), and that they had been trying to get the ouster of the respondent from the said Karaya Police Station. Further allegations have been made in paragraphs 14 and 15 which are set out below:- "14. Your petitioner states that the motive of the said so-called leaders for getting the transfer of your petitioner from the said Karaya Police Station became manifestly obvious after the Bangla Bandh Day, that is, 3.4.1981. Before the said Bangla Bandh Day, the said Sri Badshah Alam and some other local cadres of the Communist Party of India (Marxists) approached your petitioner and almost directed him to act according to their dictates in the matter of arrest of some of the alleged followers of rival political group. As your petitioner was not furnished with any incriminating reports in respect of the said alleged supporters of the rival political party, your petitioner could not satisfy them by arresting the so-called followers of the rival political group as named by Sri Alam and other supporters of the Communist Party of India (Marxists). Failure on the, part of the petitioner to act in accordance with the dictate of the said Sri Alam and other so-called leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxists) and not to be in their line with blind deference, enraged them to such an extent that a complaint against your petitioner was lodged with the higher party bosses for getting immediate transfer of the petitioner from the said Karaya Police Station. In this connection, your petitioner states that on the Bandh Day, that is, on 3.4.1981, an incident of explosion of bomb causing minor injury to 4/5 by standers at the crossing of Beckbagan Row and Syed Amir Ali Avenue occurred. In this connection, your petitioner states that on the Bandh Day, that is, on 3.4.1981, an incident of explosion of bomb causing minor injury to 4/5 by standers at the crossing of Beckbagan Row and Syed Amir Ali Avenue occurred. In view of the said incident, a case, being Karaya Police Station Case No. 85 of 3.4.1981 was initiated under sections 324, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. Concerning the said incident investigation was taken up with great immediacy and the said investigation is in progress. Already seven persons, allegedly involved in the said incident of bomb-busting, have been arrested. Despite the fact that the petitioner had already taken necessary steps under law for bringing the alleged offenders to book by initiating the case, as your petitioner could not arrest the persons belonging to a rival political party according to the dictate of the said Sri Badshah Alam and other leaders of the local Communist Party of India (Marxists), your petitioner earned the wrath of the so-called leaders who have although been seeking a ruse for seeking and/or getting the ouster of your petitioner from the said Karaya Police Station inasmuch as your petitioner's functioning as the Officer-in-Charge of the said Karaya Police Station was not to the interests of the said Sri Alam and other leaders of the local Communist Party of India (Marxists). 15. Your petitioner states that on 5.4.1981, while the street corner meeting was being held by the said Sri Badshah Alam and other leaders of the local Communist Party of India (Marxists) at the crossing of Congress Exhibition Road and Syed Amir Ali Avenue, two crackers were exploded. On receiving the said report, your petitioner rushed to the spot for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. But on your petitioner's reaching the said spot, your petitioner was instantly surrounded by the said Sri Alam and other henchmen allegedly owing allegiance to the said local Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxists) and was subjected to unwarranted and abusive affront. But on your petitioner's reaching the said spot, your petitioner was instantly surrounded by the said Sri Alam and other henchmen allegedly owing allegiance to the said local Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxists) and was subjected to unwarranted and abusive affront. As your petitioner tried to plead with the said demonstrators for seeking reason and act according to law, they refused to abide by any of the advice offered by your petitioner and further declined to have any talk with him as they wanted to have the Deputy Commissioner to be immediatly present at the said spot. The petitioner thus being left with no other alternative, had to contract the Control Room at Lalbazar whereupon the Assistant Commissioner (II), South, had to be sent to the spot. As the said Assistant Commissioner (II), South, came to the spot, the said Sri Alam and other so-called leaders of the said Communist Party of India (Marxists) immediately demanded transfer of your petitioner as he, according to them, had allegedly failed to arrest the persons named by them. It would, however, be pertinent to point out that in connection with the said incident, a case being Karaya Police Station Case No. 87 dated 5.4.1981 under sections 336 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act have already been initiated against the alleged offenders." 5. It is alleged that the object of the said local leaders of the CPI(M) became successful by the issuance of the impugned transfer order by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. It has been submitted by the respondent that the impugned order of transfer was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta under the influence and pressure exerted by the local leaders of the CPI(M). It is contended that the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta passed the impugned order of transfer for collateral purposes and in colourable exercise of his power for the purpose of satisfying the whims and caprices of the leaders of the CPI(M). 6. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, has affirmed an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. It is the case of the Commissioner of Police that not only some members of the CPI(M) but also some members of the Congress (I) held demonstrations before the Karaya Police Station. He has cited a few incidents in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition. 6. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, has affirmed an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. It is the case of the Commissioner of Police that not only some members of the CPI(M) but also some members of the Congress (I) held demonstrations before the Karaya Police Station. He has cited a few incidents in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The said incidents are as follows:- "7(a) At the instance of the 67-Block Congress Committee(I) (Somen Mitra's group), about 300 persons, including 15 ladies staged a demonstration in front of the Karaya Police Station between 19.05 hrs. and 20.30 hrs. on 16.9.80. They demanded the arrest of the anti-socials, allegedly under the protection of the local CPI(M). A 8-man deputation met O.C. Section Y and handed over a memorandum to him. The O.C. assured them that legal steps would be taken against the anti-socials. Being satisfied with the assurance, they left the place peacefully. (b) On 3.2.81 between 18.40 hrs. and 18.50 hrs. about 35 members of the 67-Block Youth Congress Committee(I) (Somen Mitra's Group) held a demonstration in front of the Karaya Police Station by shouting slogans criticising the Left Front Government of West Bengal and the Police. Thereafter they left the place peacefully. (c) On 15.3.81 at about 16.25 hrs. a procession (150 including 25 ladies) organised by the 67-Block Congress Committee-I (Subrata Mukherjee's gruop) came in front of the Karaya Police Station and held a demonstration by shouting slogans criticising the Left Front Government of West Bengal and the police. The demonstrators left the place peacefully in a procession at about 16.55 hrs. and proceeded towards Park Circus Maidan. They carried an effigy of the Chief Minister of West Bengal with them." 7. The Commissioner of Police has denied that the impugned order of transfer was passed by him to serve the alleged purpose and/or objective of the local CPI(M). It has been averred by him that the impugned order of transfer of the respondent along with others was passed by him bona fide for administrative exigencies and in public interest. He has also denied that the impugned order of transfer was passed illegally, mala fide or for a collateral purpose to apease some political party as alleged by the respondent. 8. He has also denied that the impugned order of transfer was passed illegally, mala fide or for a collateral purpose to apease some political party as alleged by the respondent. 8. It appears that the not to be had on a previous occasion filed an appeal from an interlocutory order passed by the learned Judge staying the operation of the impugned order of transfer. In that appeal, the respondent filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Paragraph 46 of the affidavit-in-opposition is set out below:- "46. My action against the commission of offence of the said leaders and cadres of the Communist Party (Marxists) were viewed with disfavour by the Commissioner of Police as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police and I have althrough been reminded by the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police not to take any action against the leaders and cadres belonging to the Communist Party (Marxists) even if they are wrong-doers. Various statements made by the Chief Minister of the Government of West Bengal would indicate that transfer of officers including myself is based on political consideration. I state that my transfer cannot be equated with routine transfer. In this connection it will be pertinent to point out further that on 1.1.1981. I was served with a telephonic message issued by the Deputy Commissioner (South) directing me to see the Commissioner of Police at his office on 2.1.1981 at 10.30 a.m. In compliance with the said message, as I went to the chamber of the Commissioner of Police, he expressed his displeasure for my not obliging the local Communist Party (Marxists) leaders and also intimated that in view of the same, the concerned authorities of the Government wanted to have my transfer from Karaya Police Station. The Commissioner of Police further observed that though he had not taken any step in spite of such desire, he would be compelled to transfer me in the event I continued to fail to co-operate with the local Communist Party (Marxists) leaders. During such discussion, the then Deputy Commissioner (South), Mr. Sundar Singh was present. The Commissioner of Police further observed that though he had not taken any step in spite of such desire, he would be compelled to transfer me in the event I continued to fail to co-operate with the local Communist Party (Marxists) leaders. During such discussion, the then Deputy Commissioner (South), Mr. Sundar Singh was present. Copy of the telephonic message dated 1.1.1981 and the extract of the relevant General Diary entries showing my departure from and return to the Police Station are annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'A'." In paragraph 21 of the affidavit-in-reply the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta replied to the allegations made by the respondent in paragraph 46 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The relevant portion of paragraph 21 of the affidavit-in-reply is set out below:- "21. In regard to paragraph 46 of the said affidavit I strongly deny and dispute that the actions against the Commission of offence of the said leaders and cadres of the Communist Party (Marxists) were viewed with disfavour of the Commissioner of Police as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Police and he had althrough been reminded by the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police not to take any action against the leaders and cadres belonging to the Communist Party (Marxists) even if they are wrong-doers. I further strongly deny that even the petitioner was called by the Commissioner of Police to express his displeasure to the petitioner for not obliging the local CPI(M)'s request. I call upon the petitioner to prove his contentions with material evidence. The alleged telephonic message had been sent to the O.C., Karaya, as a routine work by the Commissioner to express his general disapproval of the way in which he was running the police station." 9. The learned Judge came to the finding that the impugned order of transfer had been passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta in colourable exercise of power. In coming to the said finding, the learned Judge placed reliance on the statement of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, in paragraph 21 of the affidavit-in-reply to the effect that the alleged telephonic message had been sent to O.C., Karaya as a routine work by the Commissioner to express his general disapproval of the way in which he was running the Police Station. 10. 10. The learned Judge observed that on materials on record it was difficult, if not impossible, to find out why the respondent Commissioner of Police would 'generally disapprove' of the way the petitioner was running the Karaya Police Station as stated by him in the affidavit-in-reply, unless it was for the reasons advanced by the respondent. The learned Judge concluded that he was satisfied that the impugned order of transfer was not made in the bona fide exercise of power. In view of the said finding, the learned Judge directed the issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the appellants to forthwith recall, cancel and withdraw the impugned order of transfer dated April 24, 1981 and to forebear from acting on the basis thereof in any manner whatsoever. Liberty was, however, given by the learned Judge to the appellants to proceed in accordance with law. The Rule was accordingly, made absolute. Hence this appeal. 11. Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the incidents that have been referred to and relied on by the respondent in the writ petition do not establish that the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, had acted mala fide or passed the impugned order of transfer in the colourable exercise of his power or for collateral purpose or under the pressure of some local leaders of the CPI(M). It is contended by him that the respondent has miserably failed to prove satisfactorily his allegation that the order of transfer was passed mala fide by the Commissioner of Police or under the pressure of some local leaders of the CPI(M). The learned Counsel submits that heavy onus lies on the respondent to prove mala fide of the Commissioner of Police or the colourable exercise of power by him in making the order of transfer. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) S.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 555 . In support of this contention, the learned Senior Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) S.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., AIR 1974 SC 555 . In that case, it has been observed by Bhagabati, J. that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it and that the allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. Further, it has been observed, inter alia, that a few circumstances may create suspicion but suspicion cannot take the place of proof and proof needed is a high degree of proof. 12. On the other hand, it is contended by K.K. Maitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, that several incidents including the allegations made by the respondent in paragraph 46 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the previous appeal establish beyond doubt that the Commissioner of Police had acted under the influence and pressure exerted on him by the local leaders of the CPI(M). The learned Counsel submits that the impugned order of transfer is innocuous on the face of it. But in considering the validity of the order of transfer the Court should remove the veil and on such removal if the Court finds that the apparent innocuousness of the order of transfer is not the real state of affairs, in that case, the Court should strike down such an order of transfer. It is submitted by him that the facts which have been stated by the respondent in the writ petition and in the said affidavit-in-opposition amply justify the finding of the learned Judge that the order of transfer was made by the Commissioner of Police malafide and in the colourable exercise of his power. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that in considering whether a case of mala fides or colourable exercise of power has been established by the respondent or not, the Court should consider all the allegations together and not separately and upon such consideration it would be crystal clear that the order of transfer is mala fide. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that in considering whether a case of mala fides or colourable exercise of power has been established by the respondent or not, the Court should consider all the allegations together and not separately and upon such consideration it would be crystal clear that the order of transfer is mala fide. In support of this contention the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the ease of (2) State of Haryana v. Rajendra Sareen, AIR 1972 SC 1004 . In that case, it has been observed by the Supreme Court that in considering the allegations of mala fides the proper approach would be to consider all the allegations together and find out whether these allegations have been made out and whether those allegations when established, are sufficient to prove malice or ill will on the part of the official concerned, and whether the impugned order is the result of such malice or ill will. The further contention of the learned Counsel is that it is difficult for the respondent to give every bit of evidence in establishing the mala fides of the Commissioner of Police in making the order of transfer. It is submitted by him that the Court will have to infer from the facts alleged by the respondent whether the mala fides of the Commissioner of Police in making the order of transfer have been proved or not. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (3) State of Punjab v. Ramji Lal & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1228 . In that case, it has been held by the Supreme Court that where validity of action taken by the State Government is challenged on the ground that action was mala fide then to establish mala fide it is not necessary for the party alleging mala fides of State action to prove that any named officer or officers was or were responsible for that official act. The law does not cast any such burden upon the party challenging the validity of the action taken by the State Government. The State Government has undoubtedly to act through its officers. The law does not cast any such burden upon the party challenging the validity of the action taken by the State Government. The State Government has undoubtedly to act through its officers. What matters were considered, what matters were placed before the final authority and who acted on behalf of the State Government in issuing the order in the name of the Governor, are all within the knowledge of the State Government. It would be placing an intolerable burden in proof of a just claim to require a party alleging mala fides of State action to aver in his petition and to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer was responsible for misusing the authority of the State by taking action for a collateral purpose. This decision, in our opinion, has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case. The facts of the Supreme Court case were that the respondent, Ramji Lal challenged the validity of the notification issued in the name of the Governor. It was found that the issuance of the notification was not really the act of one single person approving that the notification be issued, but it was the result of a process of formal or informal enquiries and reports. In that context, the Supreme Court made the above observations. In the case before us, however, we are to consider the question whether the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, had passed the impugned order of transfer in colourable exercise of power or not. In other words, whether the Commissioner of Police had acted mala fide in issuing the impugned order of transfer. The impugned order of transfer is not the result of a process of formal or informal enquiries and reports as it was before the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, the said Supreme Court decision is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (4) Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1803 which has been relied on by Mr. Maitra has no manner of application to the facts of the present case. The said decision of the Supreme Court relates to the absence of guidelines for exercise of power under the particular provision of a statute, to be precise, section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 13. Mr. Maitra has no manner of application to the facts of the present case. The said decision of the Supreme Court relates to the absence of guidelines for exercise of power under the particular provision of a statute, to be precise, section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 13. Mr. Maitra has also relied on certain other decisions which would be referred to presently. In the case of (5) P. Pushpakaran v. The Chairman, Coir Board, Cochin, 1979 (1) SLR 309 it has been laid down by the Kerala High Court that the right to transfer an employee is a powerful weapon in the hands of the employer. Sometimes it is more dangerous than other punishments. Recent history bears testimony to this. It may, at times, bear the mask of innocuousness. What is ostensible in a transfer order may not be the real object. Behind the mask of innocence may hide sweet revenge, a desire to get rid of an inconvenient employee or to keep at bay on activist or a stormy petral. When the Court is alerted the Court has necessarily to tear the veil of deceptive innocuousness and see what exactly motivated the transfer. The Court can and should, in cases where it is satisfied that the real object of transfer is not what is apparent, examine what exactly was behind the transfer. The Madras High Court in the case of (6) C. Ramanathan v. Acting Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, 1980 (1) SLR 309 observed that an innocuous order of transfer, which not only on the face of it appears to be one made in order to further the administrative interest of an organisation, but which even on a deeper scrutiny does not pose any irregular or mala fide exercise of power by the concerned authority, is generally upheld by Civil Courts, as Courts cannot substitute their own opinion and interfere with ordinary orders of transfer of employees of established organisations. The last decision cited by Mr. Maitra is of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of (7) N.N. Singh v. General Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, 1973 (1) SLR 1153, in which a somewhat similar observation has been made. 14. The last decision cited by Mr. Maitra is of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of (7) N.N. Singh v. General Manager, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, 1973 (1) SLR 1153, in which a somewhat similar observation has been made. 14. Keeping in view the principles of law as discussed above, let us consider whether the impugned order of transfer has been passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta in colourable exercise of his power or mala fide or under the pressure of the local leaders of CPI(M). The respondent in paragraph 12 of the writ petition has referred to certain incidents that had taken place long before the order of transfer was made. It appears that certain demonstrations were made by one Badshah Alam and some other persons belonging to CPI(M), some Police Officers were assaulted, slogans were shouted before the Karaya Police Station, etc. At the same time, as the Commissioner of Police has stated in paragraph 7 of his affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, such demonstrations and shouting of slogans were also made by some persons belonging to the Congress (I). It is true that the case of the respondent is that the said Badshah Alam and other local leaders of the CPI(M) had been trying to get the respondent transferred from the Karaya Police Station, and that they had also shouted slogans in front of the said Police Station demanding the transfer of the respondent from the said Police Station, but there is no evidence in support of the said allegations. There is also no evidence in support of the allegation that the local leaders of the CPI(M) had put pressure on the Commissioner of Police for transfer of the respondent from the said Police Station. So far as the incidents are concerned the Commissioner of Police has admitted the happening of the said incidents and has also stated those incidents in his affidavit-in-opposition in some details. It appears that the Commissioner of Police has not suppressed any material fact, but he has emphatically denied that anybody had put pressure upon him or he had acted under the dictation of any local leaders of the CPI(M) in making the impugned order of transfer of the respondent. It appears that the Commissioner of Police has not suppressed any material fact, but he has emphatically denied that anybody had put pressure upon him or he had acted under the dictation of any local leaders of the CPI(M) in making the impugned order of transfer of the respondent. The question whether the State Government or a particular officer of the State Government has acted mala fide or not has to be decided on the basis of inferences to be drawn from established facts. The facts which have been established and not denied by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, are that some incidents had taken place and some demonstrations were made by the members of a certain political party before the Karaya Police Station. But the question is whether from these incidents or demonstrations could any inference be made that the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, had acted mala fide or in colourable exercise of his power in transferring the respondent from the Karaya Police Station to the Special Branch at Lalbazar. It has been already stated by us that the allegation of the respondent that the local leaders of the CPI(M) had put pressure upon the Commissioner of Police had acted under their dictates have not been established by any evidence or any material on record. These incidents, therefore, do not prove anything against the validity of the order of transfer. 15. The learned Judge, however, has placed much reliance on the allegations made by the respondent in paragraph 46 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by him in the previous appeal and the reply by the Commissioner of Police in paragraph 21 of his affidavit-in-reply. In his affidavit-in-reply, the Commissioner of Police has, no doubt, admitted that he had sent a telephonic message to the Officer-in-Charge, Karaya Police Station as a routine work by the Commissioner to express his general disapproval of the way in which he was running the Police Station. This statement by the Commissioner of Police has been strongly relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. It is submitted that this fact along with the allegations made by the respondent in the writ petition establishes beyond doubt that the Commissioner of Police had acted mala fide. We are unable to accept the contention. This statement by the Commissioner of Police has been strongly relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. It is submitted that this fact along with the allegations made by the respondent in the writ petition establishes beyond doubt that the Commissioner of Police had acted mala fide. We are unable to accept the contention. If what the respondent had alleged in paragraph 46 of his affidavit-in-opposition filed in the said previous appeal was so important a fact it is beyond comprehension why the respondent has not made the said allegations in the writ petition. It is only in the appeal from the interlocutory order passed by the learned Judge that the respondent thought fit to make those allegations in paragraph 46 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by him to the application for stay filed by the appellant. 16. The Commissioner of Police is a very responsible officer. In fact he is the highest authority so far as the Calcutta Police is concerned. It has been averred by him in paragraph 21 of his affidavit-in-reply that he expressed his general disapproval to the manner in which the respondent was running the Police Station. The learned Judge has commented that there is no material to show that there was any ground for the general disapproval as alleged by the Commissioner of Police. It is true that there is nothing specific in that regard. The Commissioner of Police, however, was not directed to file an affidavit disclosing materials in support of his statements that there was ground of general disapproval of the way the respondent was running the Police Station. We have referred to the incidents that had taken place in the vicinity of the Karaya Police Station or within the jurisdiction of the said Police Station, It appears that some members of the C.P.I. (M) made demonstrations in front of the Karaya Police Station. Some members of the Congress (I) also had made demonstrations in front of the said Police Station. According to the respondent, the said demonstrations were made by the local members of the C.P.I. (M) against the respondent. The demonstrations that were held by some members of the local Congress (I) also criticised the action of the respondent. Some members of the Congress (I) also had made demonstrations in front of the said Police Station. According to the respondent, the said demonstrations were made by the local members of the C.P.I. (M) against the respondent. The demonstrations that were held by some members of the local Congress (I) also criticised the action of the respondent. If the Commissioner of Police thought that the respondent should be transferred to some other department of the Calcutta Police for establishing peace in the locality or had expressed his disapproval of the manner in which the respondent had been discharging his duties as the Officer-in-Charge of the Karaya Police Station, we do not think that it can be said that the Commissioner of Police had acted mala fide. If the Commissioner of Police and the local leaders of C.P.I. (M) thought that the respondent was not favourably disposed towards the members of C.P.I. (M) why then the respondent would be transferred to the Special Branch which is the political wing of the Calcutta Police where he will have to deal with the political parties. After considering all the facts together, we are of the view that the respondent has failed to establish mala fide on the part of the Commissioner of Police in passing the impugned order of transfer. The incidents that took place on the Bundh Day on April 3, 1981, in our opinion, has also no bearing on the question of transfer of the respondent from the Karaya Police Station. As the Supreme Court has observed in Royappa's case (supra), the burden of establishing mala fide is very heavy on the person who alleges it. In our opinion, the respondent has failed to discharge the said burden. 17. We do not, however, say that there is no chance of the ruling political party exercising influence and exerting pressure on an authority for his acting in a certain manner. But so far as the Court is concerned, the Court must be satisfied that such exercise of influence or exertion of pressure was made by the ruling party without any reasonable ground. We may adopt the language of Bhagabati, J. in Royappa's case (supra) that we cannot say that evidence generating judicial certitude in upholding the plea of mala fide has been placed before us in the present case. 18. We may adopt the language of Bhagabati, J. in Royappa's case (supra) that we cannot say that evidence generating judicial certitude in upholding the plea of mala fide has been placed before us in the present case. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the learned trial Judge and discharge the Rule Nisi. The appeal is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. 19. The respondent is on leave. He had to take leave as directed by this Court on the prayer made on behalf of the appellants by way of an interim arrangement as suggested on behalf of the appellants. It was specifically understood that the leave would not be adjusted towards his earned leave or any other leave due to him. We, accordingly, direct that the period of leave of the respondent shall not be adjusted towards his earned leave or any other leave due to him. Sarkar, J.: I agree.