PARITOSH K. MUKHERJEE, J. The impugned order of administrative transfer dated i-1-1996, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Didonganj Chawki to Ohrimor Chawki has been challenged in the instant writ petition. 2. Honble S. R. Singh, J. after prima facie hearing learned counsel for the parties on 12-1-1996 granted time to the respondents to file counter-affidavit, and stayed the operation of the transfer order dated 1- 1-1996 until further orders. 3. Therefore, the matter appears before Honble D. S. Sinha, J. on 2-2-1996, and it was directed to be listed after one week. 4. Today this matter is appearing before this Court. 5. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. C. Yadav, learned standing counsel. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been disclos ed in paragraph 3 of the counter- affidavit that the transfer order was passed by penal measure as there were public complaints against the peti tioner, who sits inside the Hanuman temple, without any work and con sume liquor and eat mutton, which is not permissible inside the temple. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the new place of transfer is about 250 kms. away from the original posting As such, according to him the aforesaid transfer order cannot be permitted as it was passed by way of punishment. 8. However, learned standing counsel contradicted the aforesaid fact and submitted that the new place of transfer is about 50 Kms. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the facts of the case. I find that since there were complaints against the petitioner, one by the Mahant of Sri Ram Mandir, namely, Sri Manmohan Das Mahant, dated 4-12-1995 and the other by the Block Pramukh dated 6-12-1995, the administrative order of transfer dated 1-1-1996 has been passed. 10. I am of the view that the administrative order of transfer dated 1-1-1996 is entitled to be interfered with, as it was passed by wav of punishment. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order of transfer dated 1-1-1996 (Annexure-3), passed by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. 12. The respondents, and each one of them are restrained from taking any step for transfer of the petitioner on that score alone. 13. This will not, however, prevent the respondents to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 14. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order of transfer dated 1-1-1996 (Annexure-3), passed by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. 12. The respondents, and each one of them are restrained from taking any step for transfer of the petitioner on that score alone. 13. This will not, however, prevent the respondents to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 14. If after facts finding enquiry charges are prima facie established and there are materials to proceed against the petitioner departmentally then the respondents shall be entitled to initiate "disciplinary proceedings- and pass final order, including removal from service, after affording the petitioner of opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. 15. Further, if the enquiry is conducted, it is expected that the petitioner shall co-operate in the enquiry. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. ^ Petition disposed of. .