S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any illegality in the order of transfer of the petitioner. Under order dated 27th February, 1996 the petitioner is transferred from Surendranagar to Amreli. Earlier the petitioner was transferred from Amreli to Surendranagar on his own request, and in his place respondent No. 2 has been transferred to Amreli. Respondent No. 2 has approached this Court in the matter of transfer by filing special civil application No. 773 of 1996. This Court protected respondent No. 2 by granting interim relief. During the pendency of the said special civil application the order of transfer of respondent No. 2 to amreli has been withdrawn and consequently no cause survived for respondent No. 2, he, therefore, withdrew special civil application No. 773 of 1996. Naturally two persons could not be kept at one place and as such the order of transfer of the petitioner from amreli to Surendranagar has been cancelled and the petitioner has been reposted to his original post. The petitioner was a party in SP CA No. 773/96 and he did not oppose withdraw of the said Sp. CA. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has not alleged any mala fides against the officer who passed the impugned order. It is also not the case of the petitioner that some statutory provision is violated in making the order dated 27th February, 1996. The only contention raised is that the respondents have transferred the petitioner back to Amreli on the ground that this court has given such direction. This court has not given any such direction. There appears to be some mistake. It is apparent from the fact that respondent No. 2 has approached this court earlier and this Court has stayed his transfer. Only on such ground the order of transfer of the petitioner challenged in this Spl. C. A. does not vitiate. The substance of the matter has to be considered and unless the petitioner is successful in making out a case of exercise of power by the authority mala fide or violation of some statutory provision in making thereof, no question would arise to interfere with the order. As stated earlier, no such case is made out by the petitioner. ( 3 ) YET there is another ground on which the petition deserves to be dismissed. As stated earlier, no such case is made out by the petitioner. ( 3 ) YET there is another ground on which the petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner was transferred on 27th February, 1996 and the special civil application has been filed by him before this Court on 24th April, 1996. Rule was issued by this Court in this case on 30th April, 1996, but no interim relief has been granted. Respondent No. 1 has filed further affidavit in this case in which it has been stated that pursuant to the order dated 27lh February, 1996 the petitioner was relieved on 4th February, 1996, but he has not joined at the transferred place till this date. It has further been stated that a memorandum dated 18th April, 1996 has been sent by the Superintendent, Central Jail, amreli, by registered post to the petitioner calling upon him to report immediately for duty. In the momorandum it has also been mentioned that the petitioner has remained on leave without intimation or report. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he advised his client not to join at the transferred place as he was under the hope that this court will decide this case at an early date. I do not consider it proper to decide in this writ petition whether the advice given by the counsel for the petitioner was correct or not. But the fact remains that there is no justification whatsoever in not joining the transferred place by the petitioner earlier to 25th April, 1996. The advice may be there for the petitioners guidance from 25th April, 1996, but not for the period earlier to it. Being a Government servant the petitioner has to comply with the order of the superior officers. It has not ben done. It is a serious matter. It is insubordination, leaving apart the question of willful absence. It is a case where the petitioner has not come up with clean hands. He is not a law abiding citizen. A citizen invoking the equitable jurisdiction of this Court should have fairly come up before this Court. The petitioner is a person who has remained absent and as such this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. He is not a law abiding citizen. A citizen invoking the equitable jurisdiction of this Court should have fairly come up before this Court. The petitioner is a person who has remained absent and as such this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Non compliance of the order of the transfer by an employee / officer may be a serious misconduct but it is for the respondent No. 1 to take appropriate action and not for this Court. ( 4 ) THE last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that transfer of the petitioner was made to Surendranagar on his own request. He made the request for transfer for the reason that his wife is also in employment at Surendranagar. As the transfer was made on his own request the petitioner has incurred expenses for going to surendranagar. Thereafter the order has been cancelled, without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has incurred heavy monetary expenses for shifting his luggages and on fares. I find sufficient justification in the grievance of the petitioner. When the petitioner has been transferred on his own request and ultimately for any reason that order has been cancelled the respondents should have reimbursed him for the expenses. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has incurred about Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) as expenses in carrying out the order of trnasfer from amreli to Surendranagar. The petitioners claim of Rs. 2,000/- is justified and it is expected that the respondents shall consider his claim and pass appropriate orders for payment thereof to him. ( 5 ) IN the result the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. The petitioner has not come up with clean hands. He has not complied with the order of transfer. In view of this fact it is a case where the petitioner should be saddled with cost. Order accordingly. The petitioner shall pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards cost of this litigation to the respondents No. 1. .