Judgment R. N. Sahay, J. 1. On 26.2.1980 this petitioner was appointed as office Manager under the respondent-Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd. , a Govt. of India undertaking and a subsidiary of Mineral and metal Trading Corporation. In due course he was promoted as Assistant Manager. He was next promoted as Dy. Manager on regular basis on 28.2.90. On 18.12.91 he was transferred to the Research and development Department (technical non-engineering ). The petitioner is an ordinary B. Com and as such dealt with technical nonengineering subject. The petitioner felt that his transfer in the Research and Development Cell was absolutely unwarranted and unconstitutional. This led to a serious confrontation between the petitioner and the employer. The petitioner was extremely aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer. It is worthy to note that the petitioner was posted in the same premises at Abhrak Nagar where he has been working as Dy. Manager, technical, non-engineering. The petitioner challenged his transfer before this Court by filing cwjc no.907/92 interim order was passed by this Court but ultimately by order dated 9.7.92 the writ application was dismissed. 2. The petitioner moved for the second time before this Court by filing CWJC no.3887/92r on the same facts. A Division bench of this Court by order dated 29.1.93 disposed of the writ application at the admission stage. The petitioner made out a case that the previous writ application (CWJC no.907/92r) was dismissed without hearing the counsel for the petitioner who was available to argue the case. The case was not argued on merit. This court had dismissed the application on merit holding that no case of interference has been made out. The petitioner after coming to know that his writ application has been dismissed filed representation on 28.9.92 for revoking [the transfer order inter alia, on the ground iin case transfer order was given effect and iimplemented he shall surfer a loss of Rs.1368/- as allowances etc. The said representation was not responded. On the other thand he was served with order dated 10.11.92 by the Sr. Manager offering threat of disciplinary action unless he first complied with the order of transfer dated 18.12.91 and 18.8.92. In this situation the petitioner filed second writ application challenging the order dated 18.12.91 and another order dated 18.8.92. The said representation was not responded. On the other thand he was served with order dated 10.11.92 by the Sr. Manager offering threat of disciplinary action unless he first complied with the order of transfer dated 18.12.91 and 18.8.92. In this situation the petitioner filed second writ application challenging the order dated 18.12.91 and another order dated 18.8.92. The second application namely, CWJC no.3887/92r was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.6 to dispose of the representation proposed to be filed. Pending disposal or the representation it was directed no actior pursuant to the impugned order shall be taken against the petitioner. The earlie transfer order wais not given effect to. 3. The representation and supplementary representation (Annexure-11/1) filed by, the petitioner was disposed of as directed by this Court vide order dated 10.3.93 (An-nexure-12)by a reasoned order. In his supplementary representation the petitionen had prayed for transfer to Giridih on compassionate ground as well as in terms of various Govt. circular for placing husband and wife at the same place. The responded was not in a position to comply with the prayer of the petitioner to post him at Girdih in exigencies of service. One of the grievance of the petitioner before this Court in this writ application is that under relevant circular he is entitled for his posting at giridih where his wife is working in Bank of india. The claim or the petitioner, in my opinion, was misconceived and rightly rejected. In this connection it would be appropriate to take into consideration a recent judgment of Supreme Court on the point reported in Chief General Manager, NE,, telcom Circle vs. Rajendra Chandrai bhattacharjee and ors. ( AIR 1995 SC 813 ), in this case Supreme Court observed : - "7. It is needless to emphasise that at government employee or any servant of a Public Undertaking has no legal righl to insist for being posted at any particular place. It can not be disputed that the respondent holds a transferable post and unless specifically provided in his service condition, he has no choice in the matter of posting. Since the respondent has no legal or statutory right to claim his posting at Agartala and, therefore, there was no justification for the tribunal to set aside the respondents transfer to Dirnapur. " 4. Since the respondent has no legal or statutory right to claim his posting at Agartala and, therefore, there was no justification for the tribunal to set aside the respondents transfer to Dirnapur. " 4. The order rejecting representation has effectively dealt with all the grievance of the petitioner and no exception can be taken to reasonings given by respondent no.6 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 5. This is not the end of the matter. The petitioner had complained to the Chairman of the corporation vide letter dated 31.3.93 that he was not being permitted to sign the duty register on 5-3-1987. The complaint was got examined by a Committee headed by r. M. , J. M. T. The Committee found that the allegations levelled against d. G. M. and the Manager was unfounded. It was found that the petitioner was not attending the office regularly since 5-3-93 nor he had taken leave during the period. The fact of the petitioner was characterised as insubordination and misbehaviour. The competent authority decided to take following action against the petitioner (Annexure-13) : - 1. Entire period of absence from 9.3.93 would be treated as unauthorised leave.2. Caution that in future before proceeding on leave he shall take prior approval of the competent authority.3. Advised to refrain from false allegation.4. In future any act of negligence/ misbehaviour shall be dealt strongly. 6. By a subsequent order dated 26.7.93 the petitioner was placed under suspension on charges of insubordination and dereliction of duty. The suspension order was served on the petitioner on 11-9-93 at Abhrak nagar. Before the aforesaid order was served on the petitioner, he had filed representation dated 30.7.93 to the chairman. He has made more or less similar allegation which had been found by the Committee to be baseless vide Annexure-13. By order dated 14.9.93 (An-nexure-16) the petitioner was served with article of charges and other related documents in support thereof and the Sr. Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in respect of the charges. The petitioner was directed to submit written statement of his defence to the enquiry officer within 15 days of receipt of the memorandum aforesaid. 7. The statement of article of charges framed against the petitioner were as follows :- "1. Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in respect of the charges. The petitioner was directed to submit written statement of his defence to the enquiry officer within 15 days of receipt of the memorandum aforesaid. 7. The statement of article of charges framed against the petitioner were as follows :- "1. That the said Shri D. K. Mitra while functioning as Manager in the office of mitco, Abhraknagar, Jhumritelaiya has not attended office at all ever since 5.3.1993.2. That Shri D,k. Mitra frequently left the station without permission of the superior authorities to leave the headquarters.3. That during the aforesaid period and while posted in the aforesaid office, the said Shri D. K. Mitra did not apply for any kind of leave.4. That Shri Mitra has been levelling false allegation against Shri R. R Singh, dy. General Manager and Shri B. N. Prasad, manager, both of Abhraknagar that they have not allowed him to sign the attendance register to mark his presence in office from 5.3.1993. Shri D. K. Mitra by his above acts exhibited lack of devotion to duty and committed an act of misconduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant, which inter alia are prima facie violative of rule 4 and 5 (7), 5 (17), 5 (19) of the mitco, Employees Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. " 8. The Enquiry officer submitted his report on 22-1-94 to the Disciplinary authority wherein he found charges framed against the petitioner to be proved. 9. Accepting the enquiry report disciplinary authority passed the following orders : - " (1) His two increments are withheld with cumulative effect; (2) He has been transferred from mica Scrap, Abhraknagar to Mica Scrap, gudur; (3) His suspension is revoked with effect from the date he joins at Gudur. The above actions have been taken so that Mr. Mitra while retaining the same nature of job maintains proper discipline in the office where his conduct would be watched for two years. Shri Mitra stands relieved from abrakhnagar to join Gudur with immediate effect. " 10. It is this order along with other orders which are under challenge in this application. Mitra while retaining the same nature of job maintains proper discipline in the office where his conduct would be watched for two years. Shri Mitra stands relieved from abrakhnagar to join Gudur with immediate effect. " 10. It is this order along with other orders which are under challenge in this application. The other orders which are challenged are :- 1) Annexure-12 dated 10.3.93 whereby his representation filed in terms of order passed by this Court in CWJC no.3887/92r was dismissed by a speaking order passed by Manager (Vigilence)dated 6.7.93 (Annexure-13 ).2) The order dated 26th July 1993 (Annexure-14) issued by the Manager (Pand A ). 11. Shri RK. Sinha learned Sr. counsel appearing in support of this application has strongly submitted that the impugned orders are unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300a of the constitution of India. He argued that the charges served on the petitioner were non-est and actuated by malice to victimise the petitioner. It was submitted that the charges were framed by the Manager ( P and A) who is of equivalent rank to the petitioner. He was not legally competent to frame charges. He has lastly submitted that the enquiry was conducted in a purfunctory manner, with the sole object to punish the petitioner. These orders are challenged on numerous grounds highlighted in para 12 of the writ application. 12. Shri Sinha expanded his argument by submitting that posting of the petitioner from non-engineering cadre to engineer cadre was illegal since it was an ex-cadre transfer. He submitted that for serving in technical engineering group which requires certain specific qualification which the petitioner does not possess. The job specification for the post of Chief Manager and Dy. Manager in the Research and development Centre is totally different from the requisite qualification for technical non-engineering group. In the Research and development Cenlre degree in electrical engineering is essential. For this reason the petitioner made representation on 11.1.92 against the illegal order of transfer to the general Manager drawing his attention to the infirmities in his transfer, which is also contrary to the circular issued by the Corporation. His transfer entails loss of remuneration and other benefits to the tune of Rs.4363/-. After the disposal of the 2nd writ application the petitioner, as stated filed additional representation specifically raising the question raised in this writ application. His transfer entails loss of remuneration and other benefits to the tune of Rs.4363/-. After the disposal of the 2nd writ application the petitioner, as stated filed additional representation specifically raising the question raised in this writ application. As stated earlier the concerned respondent did not find any merit in the representation and accordingly, rejecled it. Shri Sinha submitted that rejection was based on extraneous consideration and irrelevant factors without deciding the principal question raised by the petitioner i. e. illegality and infirmity in the order. 13. Shri Sinha submitted that the petitioner has wide experience in natural mica and was therefore posted in Research and Development Department to determine the quality, types and category of Mica used in Research and Development Centre together with qualified engineer already posted in the R and D Cell. It is submitted that nature of the job performed by the petitioner can not be equated with the job which he is supposed to perform in the R and d Cell. 14. The validity of Annexure-13 has been challenged on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing before holding the petitioner guilty of insubordination and misbehaviour. The petitioner preferred representation to the chairman which was rejected. 15. The memorandum of charges served on the petitioner has been challenged on the ground that Shri S. R Mehta, manager ( P and A) who is not the appointing authority was incompetent to frame charge. Shri Mehta holds equivalent rank as the petitioner. Shri Mehta is junior to the petitioner in the seniority list. It is submitted that the charges were maliciously false and pre-determined. 16. The conduct of the disciplinary proceeding has been challenged on the ground that the documents in support of the charges were not supplied to the petitioner and further he was denied adequate opportunity to defend himself. He has submitted that there was total failure of principle of natural justice and reasonable opportunity. The Enquiry officer also refused to give necessary documents and/or copies whereof to the petitioner. The petitioner was not given opportunity to depose in the enquiry. Shri Sinha submitted that the whole process of enquiry betrays upon the procedure of Discipline (Conduct and Appeal) Rule 1978. 17. Shri Sinha has challenged the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer. It was submitted that the enquiry officer wrongly held the petitioner guilty of absence without leave. The petitioner was not given opportunity to depose in the enquiry. Shri Sinha submitted that the whole process of enquiry betrays upon the procedure of Discipline (Conduct and Appeal) Rule 1978. 17. Shri Sinha has challenged the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer. It was submitted that the enquiry officer wrongly held the petitioner guilty of absence without leave. It is submitted that the finding of misconduct is contrary to requirement of rule 5 of Discipline (Conduct and Appeal)Rules, 1978 which defines misconduct. It is submitted that the petitioner can not be said to have committed any act within the four corners of the Rules. 18. Shri Sinha has submitted that the impugned order is malafide for the reasons suspension order has been revoked subject to after joining of the petitioner in Gudur in the State of Andhra Pradhesh which is far away from Jhumritelaiya. In the earlier writ application reference to which has been made in the earlier part of the order the petitioner had challenged the order of his transfer to another department from his department i. e. situated in the same place of Jhumritelaiya. This Court, (sic) Sri Sinha, found merit in his objection to the transfer, issued necessary direction to the respondents which have not been complied and the respondents in colourable exercise of power and malafide action transferred the petitioner to Gudur. This he submitted is a clear case of victimisation and nullifying direction of this Court. 19. The petitioner who is naturally aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment preferred a representation dated 15.2.95 to the Chairman of the Corporation against the impugned Annexure-20. He preferred another representation to the Dy. General Manager. As the representations were not responded by the concerned respondent, the petitioner filed present writ application for a writ of certiorari to quash the order detailed in para 42 of the writ petition. 20. Shri S. K. Katariar, learned Sr. counsel for the respondents has vigorously countered the argument advanced by the sr. counsel for the petitioner. Each of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner has been effectively demolished on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 8. 20. Shri S. K. Katariar, learned Sr. counsel for the respondents has vigorously countered the argument advanced by the sr. counsel for the petitioner. Each of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner has been effectively demolished on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 8. It is stated although the petitioner has challenged earlier order of transfer in CWJC no.907/92r and CWJC no.3887/92r but infact earlier order transferring the petitioner from m. S. RY to R and D Wing was not implemented and the petitioner continued in his previous post. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations of the writ petitioner that he was compelled to join R and D Wing of the corporation is a false statement because transfer order was never given effect. 21. Shri Katariar submitted that the petitioner had made complaint that Shri R. R singh, Dy. General Manager, Abhraknagar, where the petitioner was posted, was not allowing the petitioner to sign the daily attendance register. As already noted a committee constituted to enquire into the allegation found the complaint to be mischievously false. Leave rules of MITCO was taken recourse to and absence from 5.3.93 was treated to be unauthorised leave. There was no element of punishment involved in the said order which was the natural consequence under the leave Rules for not reporting on duty. As the petitioner remained continuously absent from 5-3-93 he was placed under suspension vide order (Annexure-14) in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. Learned counsel next contended that there is absolutely no force in the plea of the petitioner that he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself during course of enquiry. As a matter of fact he did not in the least co-operate and almost entirely abstained, after his initial appearance on two days. All the relevant documents were supplied to him on 4.3.93 when he appeared before the Enquiry officer. He again appeared before Enquiry officer on 4.10.93. Thereafter he absented from the proceeding despite repeated notice. The documents desired by the petitioner were ready to be supplied but the petitioner did not appear to receive the documents. He never appeared in the Enquiry after 5.11.93. Learned counsel has referred to the order sheet maintained by the Enquiry officer (Annexure-C)and submitted there can be no doubt that adequate and reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to contest the charges. He never appeared in the Enquiry after 5.11.93. Learned counsel has referred to the order sheet maintained by the Enquiry officer (Annexure-C)and submitted there can be no doubt that adequate and reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to contest the charges. It is submitted that the Enquiry officer on the basis of ex parte enquiry submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges against the petitioner to be amply proved. However, the petitioner was not inflicted with major punishment. The respondent Corporation has taken a lenient view of the matter. Had the respondents been actuated with malafide motive he would (sic) have escaped with a minor punishment only. 22. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred to MITCO Scrap, gudur not by way of punishment but in order to provide better environment to the petitioner. This, it is stated, itself is manifest from the note dated 2.11.94 recorded by the functionary of the Corporation pursuan to the observations in the enquiry report. Shri Katariar closed his argument by submitting that the writ application is premature. It is submitted that the Chairman of respondent no.1 has no authority in law to deal with petitioners representation. The petitioner has alternative remedy by way of review under the Rule 34 of the MITCO employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal)Rules, 1978. Under the Rule 34 wide power has been vested in the Disciplinary authority to review the entire order made. Learned counsel submittec that the writ application is without any merit and, therefore, should be dismissed. 23. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Although as stated earlier that first transfer order was not given effect still the petitioner appears to be obsessed with a feeling that he has been victimised by sending him to R and D. Centre. Now this question hardly survives for consideration since now he has been transferred to Gudur in terms of impugned order (Annexure-20 ). It is asserted that the petitioner was denied opportunity to defend himself. However, from the material on record I am not convinced that this allegation holds in good. However, the petitioner has tried to dispule the fact relating to appearance of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. It is not possible to decide this disputed question of facts. 24. It is asserted that the petitioner was denied opportunity to defend himself. However, from the material on record I am not convinced that this allegation holds in good. However, the petitioner has tried to dispule the fact relating to appearance of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. It is not possible to decide this disputed question of facts. 24. On consideration of all the relevant aspect of the malter I have come to the conclusion that interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india in the facts and circumstances of the case, is neither desirable nor warranted. The petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of review. I think the petitioner, if so advised, may take recourse to the alternative remedy as provided under rule 34 of the MITCO Employees (Conduct,discipline and Appeal)Rules, 1978. If such representation is filed I hope and trust grievance of the petitioner shall be thoroughly examined as the reviewing authority has been vested with very wide powers which power can not be exercised by this Court. 25. This writ application fails and accordingly dismissed but without costs.