Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner at the material time was posted as M.V.I. at Dhanbad. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has impugned the legality of the order date 30.6.95 as contained in Annexure-1 whereby he has been transferred to Darbhanga for administrative reasons. The order was to be implemented with immediate effect. The petitioner immediately rushed to this Court and filed a writ application bearing CW.J.C. No. 1498/95(R); The said application was disposed of on 6.7.95 by passing following orders: After some argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this application and as such this writ petition is dismissed as with-drawn. However, this will not prevent the petitioner from making any representation against his transfer, before the appropriate authority. 2. The petitioner had withdrawn the application for filing a representation for cancelling the transfer. On 7.7.95 his wife filed a representation before the Revenue Minister praying that the transfer be stayed for six months on the ground she was suffering from various ailments. The petitioner without waiting for order on the representation filed instant writ application on 13.7.95. By order dt. 14.7.95 conditional order of status quo passed. 3. By another notification dated 30.6.95 Chandra Bhusan Pd. Singh (respondent No. 4) has been posted in place of the petitioner. The said respondent 1 as appeared and filed counter affidavit stating that he assumed charge on 13.7.95 in the forenoon vide letter No. 888 dt. 13.7.95 of the Deputy Collector, Confidential section, Dhanbad. This statement is, however, disputed by the petitioner and asserts that he is still continuing there by virtue of the status quo order and it is not a fact that he had been divested of his office. Whether the respondent No. 4 has assumed charge is not the issue. The main question is whether the petitioner has made out any case for interference by this Court in a transfer matter. 4. It would be appropriate at this stage to consider the factual background which led to transfer of the petitioner on administrative grounds. For this we have to turn to the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It appears that on 17.5.95 Hon ble Transport Minister happened to be in Dhanbad. 4. It would be appropriate at this stage to consider the factual background which led to transfer of the petitioner on administrative grounds. For this we have to turn to the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It appears that on 17.5.95 Hon ble Transport Minister happened to be in Dhanbad. One Ram Hare Agarwal of Dhanbad who is owner of several trucks and allegedly weilds some political influence being a member of a political party submitted a petition before the Minister to the effect that this truck bearing Registration No. WB-37-1457 got involved in an accident and was lying at the police station. He requested the petitioner to inspect the vehicle. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,500.00 but after persuation accepted Rs. 1500.00 and then inspected the truck. The Minister made an endorsement on the said complaint that the allegation be enquired by the Deputy Commissioner, so that appropriate action be taken which shall serve as eye opener for others. As directed by the Minister, the Deputy Commissioner, held a thorough enquiry. The enquiry was not confidential but open one in which the complainant and the present petitioner appeared and gave statement. In due course the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad submitted his report (Annexure-A-10) to the Minister. 5. The Minister passed the following order on the covering letter of the Deputy Commissioner: S.T.C. This is a peculiar case which needs attention. The D.C. Dhanbad, has given a categorical report. Since the petitioner was given to me in the midst of public, some action has to be taken. The D.C. has also indicted the informant but we should not take any action against because the other persons will not dare to complain against the officials. Therefore, he must be transferred from Dhanbad, please study and send file with your opinion. 6. According to the report of the Deputy Commissioner, the complainant Ram Hare Agrawal stated before him on oath that his truck became involved in a fatal accident on 9.2.95 in which a girl was killed. A case under Sec. 304(A) of the I.P.C. was registered at Baghmara P.S. The Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police sent a requisition on 9.2.95 itself that the truck which had been seized and lying in the police station be inspected by the petitioner and report submitted. A case under Sec. 304(A) of the I.P.C. was registered at Baghmara P.S. The Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police sent a requisition on 9.2.95 itself that the truck which had been seized and lying in the police station be inspected by the petitioner and report submitted. The complainant sent his younger brother Bijay Kumar Agarwal to the petitioner to request him to expedite the inspection. His brother was informed by one Jitendra Singh, that the petitioner was demanding P.s. 3,.000.00 to inspect the vehicle. The complainant himself visited the petitioner on 14.9.95 and talked to him. He denied that he had demanded money for inspection. He called the complainant on next day at 12.00 noon. The complainant stated this fact to his younger brother and also commented that the petitioner appeared to be a honest officer. The complainant was directed to visit the office of the petitioner on 15.2.95 at 9.30 A.M. When he met the petitioner he was told to contact the Bada-Babu of the office who was sitting in adjacent room. When the complaint met Bada Babu who disclosed that the petitioner normally charge Rs. 2,500.00 for inspection of vehicle. The complainant was surprised because he was under the impression that the petitioner appeared to be a honest man as he had not mentioned about money when he visited the petitioner the previous day. Ram Hare Agarwal met the petitioner who gave him little piece advice. He said that the complainant did not appear to be a practical man. The petitioner, however, disclosed that he got his posting at Dhanbad by paying huge money to the Minister. He also said that he has to pay substantial amount to the Minister every month. The complaint expressed his inability to Pay Rs. 2500.00 . The petitioner replied that he would not act contrary to his principles. The complainant said that he would talk with the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner is said to have stated that he was not going to benefit by that course because the petitioner had wide influence. The complainant had filed an application before the C.J.M. Dhanbad but the lawyer told him that the court will not release the truck without the report of the M.V.I. He advised the complainant to pay something to the petitioner and settled the matter. The complainant then talked to his younger brother at Chrikunda on telephone. His brother could arrange Rs. The complainant had filed an application before the C.J.M. Dhanbad but the lawyer told him that the court will not release the truck without the report of the M.V.I. He advised the complainant to pay something to the petitioner and settled the matter. The complainant then talked to his younger brother at Chrikunda on telephone. His brother could arrange Rs. 1500.00 which was paid to the petitioner in his chamber. The complainant alleged that the petitioner in fact did not inspect the truck. He asked the Bada-Babu to prepare the inspection report. The other allegations of Agarwal against the petitioner is not relevant for present purpose. 7. Now let us turn to the statement of the petitioner recorded by the Deputy Commissioner on oath. The petitioner stated that a requisition of date 11.2.95 was sent to him which was received by him on 14.2.95 for inspection of the truck in question. On 15.2.95 he visited the police station where the truck had been kept and inspected the vehicle. He prepared a report and submitted to the Officer-in-charge of Baghmara Police station. The Deputy Commissioner told the petitioners that if the inspection was made the very next day, he received the requisition then there was no reason why Agarwal made allegations against him. To this the petitioner replied that the complainant in owner of about ten trucks out of which he got transferred 8 trucks to Asansol. He filed application on 4.4.95 for transfer of his other two trucks to Asansol (West Bengal). It was necessary to obtain no Objection Certificate from the District Transport Officer, for transfer. The District Transport Officer was on leave on that day and hence the complainant approached the petitioner and requested him to put his signature of the no Objection Certificate. The petitioner refused to oblige him saying that he was not incharge, District Transport Officer. Agarwal tried to put pressure on the petitioner and also offered money. The petitioner flatly refused to give certificate. Petitioner stated that this was the reason why the complainant brought a fabricated allegation against him. The petitioner further gave statement that two private firms have also been authorised to test vehicles. One of such institution had issued a false certificate. The petitioner had sent complaint to the effect against the said institute. The petitioner flatly refused to give certificate. Petitioner stated that this was the reason why the complainant brought a fabricated allegation against him. The petitioner further gave statement that two private firms have also been authorised to test vehicles. One of such institution had issued a false certificate. The petitioner had sent complaint to the effect against the said institute. He alleged that on 17.5.95 when the Minister was in Circuit House where Ram Hare Agarwal had gone to submit his complaint petition, the owner of the aforesaid testing station-was seen in the Circuit House. Both the complainant and the said owner came out from the room of the Minister and told the petitioner that they shall now see him. 8. The Deputy Commissioner, considering the statement of Ram Hare Agarwal and the petitioner and on confidential enquiry came to the following conclusions: i) The petitioner had taken Rs. 1500.00 from Ram Hare Agarwal of inspecting his truck. ii) The allegation of the petitioner against Ram Hare Agarwal that he tried to put pressure on the petitioners to issue No Objection. Certificate, was true. If the petitioner had succumbed to the pressure, the matter would have not gone further. iii) On confidential enquiry it transpired that the petitioner was a influential officer who claimed connection with politicians and with this reputation used to extort money for doing his job. iv) Before the incident in question relationship between Ram Hare Agarwal and the petitioner were very cordial. Agarwal not only got favour from the petitioner but he also acted as agent. of petitioner in getting other vehicles owners to offer money to the petitioner for doing favour. The real cause for the dispute was the distribution of share of the illegal money. 9. The Deputy Commissioner, recommended that the petitioner deserved to be put under suspension and a criminal case instituted against him. So far Ram Hare Agarwal is concerned, he found the conduct of this man extremely suspicious. Agarwal had admitted that he has given money to the petitioner for favour. The Deputy Commissioner censured the complaint on strong terms. 10. It is indeed intriguing despite the definite finding of the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct in taking bribe for performing his official duty he was merely transferred. No criminal case so far has been instituted against him. The Deputy Commissioner censured the complaint on strong terms. 10. It is indeed intriguing despite the definite finding of the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct in taking bribe for performing his official duty he was merely transferred. No criminal case so far has been instituted against him. I have been informed by the counsel of the petitioner that a departmental proceeding has been initiated but no progress has been made so far. 11. The petitioner has not been suspended. This means that the concerned authority was not sure whether the findings of Deputy Commissioner was based on cogent facts and evidence. The reason is obvious. The Deputy Commissioner himself found the conduct of the complainant Ram Hare Agarwal not to be above Board. However, it is to be conceded that the Deputy Commissioner was very fair in his approach. He has thoroughly considered the case of both the parties with unbiased mind. 12. The question for consideration is even if the allegation against the petitioner has not been established beyond reasonable doubt whether the impugned order of transfer in the facts and circumstances of the case should be quashed. 13. Shri Basudeo Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order ought to be quashed on the ground of malafide exercise of power. He has cited several authorities buttress his argument. It is well settled that the order of transfer though purely administrative is justiciable in a court of law on the ground of violation of relevant rules and malafide exercise of power. 14. In Union of India V/s. S.L. Abbas 1994 (1) PLJR 1 (S.C.) the Supreme Court reiterated the well settled rules that an order of transfer in an incident of Govt. service. But it would be different matter if the order is vitiated by malafide on the part of the authority making the order. It has been further observed: Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines is used by the Government on the subject. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines is used by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The impugned order of transfer is not a normal administrative order but a strictly a penal order which can not be disputed. 15 The Minister after receiving the complaint could have transferred the petitioner straightway but he thought the allegation being serious in nature, should be enquired by the Deputy Commissioner. In due course enquiry was made and report was submitted. It is apparent from the endorsement of the Minister on the report of the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-A) that the learned Minister did not critically examine the enquiry report. In view of thecategorical findings of the Deputy Commissioner the Minister had no option but to take some action against the petitioner. He was satisfied that transfer of the petitioner from Dhanbad would meet the case. But in my considered opinion, the Hon ble Minister probably could not discover the lacuna in the report as noticed earlier. At the cost of repetition I would observe that the Deputy Commissioner was not fully convinced with the conduct and allegation of Ram Hare Agarwal who appears to be a busy body having considerably political clout. If the petitioner was transferred without enquiry no objection could have been taken but once enquiry is held and report is made public the matter became justiciable and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the matter requires reconsideration by the concerned respondents. 16. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Govt. Advocate have strongly submitted that the second application is not maintainable because the petitioner had withdrawn the first writ petition in order to file representation for cancellation of the order. The petitioner did not file any representation but his wife which is still under consideration. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on a decision of Single Judge of Allahabad High Court (Syed Nizam V/s. First Additional Civil fudge, Faizabad). The petitioner did not file any representation but his wife which is still under consideration. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on a decision of Single Judge of Allahabad High Court (Syed Nizam V/s. First Additional Civil fudge, Faizabad). In this decision it has been held relying on 1987 SC 88 that if petition is dismissed as not pressed or withdrawn without permission to file fresh application the second petition for the same relief is not maintainable. 17. In Sarguja Transport Service V/s. State Transport Appeallate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors.. -- the Supreme Court held that withdrawal of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without permission to institute fresh petition, subsequent petition is respect of the same cause of action is not maintainable on the ground of public policy. It was observed: The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy but it is not the same as the rule of res judicata. This principle underlying Rule 10. 23 should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy. That would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench hunting tactics. In any event there is no justificable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 once again. This decision to some extent supports the contention of respondents but I think the instant case is somewhat on different footing. As stated earlier the petitioner withdrew the application to prefer representation. 18 In B, Prabhakar Rao V/s. State of A.P. -- the Supreme Court held that "if earlier writ petition is dismissed in limine, the said dismissal would inhibit discretion but not jurisdiction of Supreme Court to hear the subsequent writ." The first writ application was not dismissed but was allowed to be withdrawn to file representation. The representation was no doubt filed by the petitioner but without waiting for the result the petitioneragain moved this Court within one week after withdrawal of the first application. 19. Petitioners representation is still pending and in view of statements made in the counter affidavit the petitioner can not expect that transfer order shall be cancelled on his representation. The representation was no doubt filed by the petitioner but without waiting for the result the petitioneragain moved this Court within one week after withdrawal of the first application. 19. Petitioners representation is still pending and in view of statements made in the counter affidavit the petitioner can not expect that transfer order shall be cancelled on his representation. In the facts and circumstances of the case I direct the concerned authority to review the transfer order in the light of observations made in the Judgment particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been suspended and a departmental proceeding has been initiated. I further observe that no coercive steps may be taken against the petitioner till his representation is decided or proceeding is not concluded whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No. 2 along with the copy of this judgment within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy and the concerned respondent shall review the matter or ensure disciplinary proceeding is disposed of within three months. The petitioner may file an application for stay of his transfer till disposal of the matter as directed by this Court provided he has not already been relieved. It will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order of transfer if the petitioner has completed substantial part of his tenure at Dhanbad or on fresh administrative ground. 20. This application is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.