Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant case reveals as to what extent a litigant can muster the courage to abuse the process of the Court and put the very high officials in dock for not complying with the order of the Court without disclosing that he himself is liable to face disciplinary proceedings in respect of the subject-matter of writ petition itself. (2). The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called ``the Tribunal) on 3.6.97, by which the learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the impugned transfer/attachment orders dated 14.3.97 and 26.3.97, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Gotan and attached to the Office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Nagaur. (3). Petitioner is a Male-Nurse Grade II and serves under the respondent No.1. He was transferred and attached to the Office of the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Nagaur (hereinafter called the C.M.H.O.), by the aforesaid transfer/attachment orders, but for the reasons best known to him, he did not consider it necessary to join the duty in the Office of the C.M.H.O.. However, being aggrieved by the said transfer/attachment orders, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal but the Tribunal did not stay the operation of the impugned transfer/attachment orders and ultimately the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3.6.97. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. (4). The Court, vide order dated 29.9.97 directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order of posting of the petitioner considering the administrative exigencies and the Director of the Department posted the petitioner at village Laddy (district Nagaur) vide order dated 20.10.97 and he is working there since then. This Court,also, passed certain orders regarding payment of arrears and bonus etc. and as the same could not be paid in the stipulated time, petitioner preferred the contempt petition. The respondents have filed reply to the contempt petition as well as that of the writ petition and the respondent No. 2, C.M.H.O. alongwith other officers, are present in the Court today. By the consent of the parties, the contempt petition as well as the writ petition have been heard finally. (5). The dispute in the Contempt Petition is regarding the non- payment of arrears of salary etc. and this Court, vide order dated 4.7.98 directed Mr. By the consent of the parties, the contempt petition as well as the writ petition have been heard finally. (5). The dispute in the Contempt Petition is regarding the non- payment of arrears of salary etc. and this Court, vide order dated 4.7.98 directed Mr. G.L. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents, to bring the bank drafts of the dues in the Court and today the two bank drafts for the amount of Rs. 23,352/- towards arrears of salary and for Rs. 2419/- towards arrears of bonus, have been received by the pe- titioner in the Court. However, the petitioner has made the grievance that it is not full and final payment as the petitioner has,also, not been paid the salary and bonus for the period prior to 20.10.97, i.e., before joining at village Laddy. (6). The issue of entitlement of the salary prior to that period shall be dealt-with separately. However, the petitioner is satisfied that subsequent to that period, no arrear are due towards the salary or bonus account. But he claims that certain amount is due as Travelling and Daily Allowances etc. However, the respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, has assured the Court that if anything is due subsequent to the date of joining of the petitioner at village Laddy, the petitioner may make a representation and the same shall be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks and if his claim is found acceptable in accordance with law, the payment shall be made to him. Thus, nothing survives in the contempt petition is liable to be rejected. (7). In writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that he had been subjec- ted to frequent transfer orders and that too at the behest of the politician. However, after this Court passed the order regarding posting of the petitioner according to the administrative exigencies, the Director of the Department had posted him at village Laddy and he is working there. Even against the said order of posting, his grievance has been that village Laddy is far away from his native village and he should be posted at Gotan. The distance from the place of his residence or personal inconvenience of an employee is no ground, on which the writ Court can interfere with the transfer/attachment orders. (8). Even against the said order of posting, his grievance has been that village Laddy is far away from his native village and he should be posted at Gotan. The distance from the place of his residence or personal inconvenience of an employee is no ground, on which the writ Court can interfere with the transfer/attachment orders. (8). The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions. If is entirely upto the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. (Vide Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (1), Shilpa Bose vs State of Bihar (2), Union of India vs. N.P. Thomas (3), Chief Manager (Tel.) N.E. Telecom Circle vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee (4), State of U.P. vs. Dr. R.N. Prasad (5), Union of India & Ors. vs. Ganesh Dan Singh (6), N.K. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (7) and Abani Kante Ray vs. State of Orissa (8). (9). An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work on a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. In Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Atma Ram Sugomal Poshani (9), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:- ``Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No Govt. servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. (10). Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee (supra). (11). Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. (10). Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee (supra). (11). In Union of India vs. H.N. Kirtania (10), the Honble Apex Court observed as under:- ``Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the gro- und of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide. (12). In the instant case, as the petitioner has been posted, now, at village Laddy by the Director, considering the administrative exigency, no interference is warranted at this stage, however, the petitioner should not be transferred from Laddy for some time unless the administrative exigency so requires. (13). There may be some substance in the grievance of the petitioner that he had been subjected to frequent transfers in the past, but that does not entitle him to remain absent from duty without any reasonable cause for a period of more than six months. Admittedly, petitioner had preferred the appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned transfer order but the learned Tribunal did not stay the opera- tion of the impugned transfer/attachment orders. Thus, there could be no justification for the petitioner not to join the duty at the place of his posting and remaining absent for such a long period without any reasonable cause and evading the transfer order may amount to serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner, which requires a thorough probing of the matter. In Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Atma Ram (supra), the Honble Apex Court has observed as under:- ``Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any geniune difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation or the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a re- presentation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order his transfer from one place to the other. (14). However, I fail to understand if the petitioner had been guilty of committing such a gross misconduct as alleged by the respondents, why they could not proceed-with the disciplinary proceedings against him ? Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the respondents could not proceed against the petitioner because of the pendency of his case before the Court and particularly for the reason that the respondents were facing contempt proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, who allegedly himself is guilty of such a gross misconduct, has used the equity court as a lever to serve its purpose and obtained favourable orders without disclosing that he remained absent for a period of more that six months without sufficient cause. Had he disclosed it, perhaps the equity jurisdiction could not have been exercised by this Court, as petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. Even if it is found that the frequent transfers of the petitioner by respondents were not justifiable, the misconduct of the petitioner was such that his petition could not have been entertained. (Vide Appa Roa vs. Ramalingamurthi (12). and Pukh Raj vs. State of Rajasthan and others (13). However, the writ Court, being the custodian of law, is required to consider the aspect of substantial justice, and in the factual circumstances of this case, it is desireable that the respondents be directed to proceed against the petitioner with disciplinary proceedings. (15). (Vide Appa Roa vs. Ramalingamurthi (12). and Pukh Raj vs. State of Rajasthan and others (13). However, the writ Court, being the custodian of law, is required to consider the aspect of substantial justice, and in the factual circumstances of this case, it is desireable that the respondents be directed to proceed against the petitioner with disciplinary proceedings. (15). In view of the above, it is directed that the respondent- Authority shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, as provided under the Rules, for his remaining absent for a period of more than six months without any cause and conclude the enquiry within a period of six months. However, the respondents shall ensure that the enquiry by held strictly in consonance with the statutory rules. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the enquiry. However, it is clarified that if petitioner does not cooperate with the enquiry, the Competent Authority, after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner and recording reasons, may proceed ex-parte as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. T.P. Servastava (14). After the enquiry is concluded, the Competent Authority will pass appropriate orders and it will, also consider as how the period of absenteeism be treated and whether payment of arrears etc. be made for the said period. If, however, the Authority decides that payment is to be made then it shall be made within the period of six weeks thereafter. (16). With these observations, the contempt petition and the writ petition are disposed of. The notices issued in the contempt petition stand discharged.