JUDGMENT 1. - Since facts of both these petitions are common in character they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. In writ petition No. 4136/1998 charge sheets dated June 1, 1998 filed against the petitioners Arun Singh and P.P. Singh, are under challenge whereas order of transfer dated August 10, 1998 of petitioner Arun Singh from Jaipur to Chennai has been assailed in writ petition No. 4148/98.WRIT PETFIION NO. 4136/98: 3. The petitioners in writ petition No. 4136/98 averred that on Feb. 22, 19% a preliminary inspection was carried out by the petitioner Arun Singh with his senior colleague Petitioner P.P. Singh, of a fine M/s. Shivagrico Implements Ltd. Falna, for grant of licence to use ISI marks on POWRAH. On the basis of the inspection report of the petitioner the firm was granted licence which is still continuing. Thereafter inquiry was conducted malafidely at the behest of respondent No.2 and charge sheets dated June 1, 1998 issued against the petitioners are fabricated and concocted and the same have been issued on account of biased attitude and malafide intentions by and at the behest of Shri P.S. Das Director General, Bureau of Indian Standard New Delhi (Respondent No.2). The allegations of taking bribe against the petitioners in the charge sheets are based on conjectures and surmises without any material particulars. Detailed replies submitted by the petitioners against the show cause notices have been ignored deliberately since the respondent No.2, who is presently holding the highest office of the Bureau is adamant upon victimising the petitioners. While framing the charge sheets, the convincing replies of the petitioners have been brushed aside without any reason since the respondent No.2, who is the disciplinary authority as well as the head of Bureau, is acting with a biased attitude and malafide intentions. The impugned charge sheets deserve to be quashed, being arbitrary, discriminatory and malicious. The petitioners incorporated circumstances in pars 8 of the writ petition on account of which ego of respondent No.2 got hurt and he became annoyed with petitioner Arun Singh. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.2 spoiled the confidential report of the year 1990 but the said adverse entries were expunged by the then Director General. The petitioners incorporated circumstances in pars 8 of the writ petition on account of which ego of respondent No.2 got hurt and he became annoyed with petitioner Arun Singh. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.2 spoiled the confidential report of the year 1990 but the said adverse entries were expunged by the then Director General. Several other instances showing the biased attitude of respondent No.2 towards petitioner Arun Singh have been narrated in para 9 of the writ petition and affidavit of Arun Singh has been filed in support of the facts narrated in the writ petition. 4. The respondents in their written statement denied the allegations of biased attitude and malafide intention. It is contended that the charge sheets have been issued on the basis of investigation carried on the basis of information/complaint received against the petitioners and the charges of misconduct were framed against them strictly in accordance with the Central Government instructions after seeking the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission which was duly considered and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1969 and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which are binding on all Bureau employees. The Enquiry Officer is an independent authority nominated by the Central Vigilance Commission. The petitioners have no cause of action to file the writ petition as they may place all the relevant facts before the inquiry officer. As the inquiry is in the process, it would be premature to give comments in respect of the facts. The investigations made by the Vigilance Department were comprehensive and covered all the aspects of the case. Counter affidavit of P.S. Das Respondent No.2 denying the allegations made against him, has also been filed along with the written statement. 5. In rejoinder the petitioners pleaded that the respondents have avoided the judicial scrutiny by this court. Not a single averment made in the writ petition has been controverted. The personal affidavit of respondent No.2 is no affidavit in the eye of law as he simply denied the allegations without any factual foundation. The role of inquiring authority is limited to the matter/allegations in the charge sheets. Not a single averment made in the writ petition has been controverted. The personal affidavit of respondent No.2 is no affidavit in the eye of law as he simply denied the allegations without any factual foundation. The role of inquiring authority is limited to the matter/allegations in the charge sheets. He can not enquire into the role of disciplinary authority respondent No.2 and the rule of D.K. Agarwal or the role of R.K. Trehan in falsely implicating the petitioner in the charge sheet nor will he examine the earlier so called mistakes committed in case of M/s. Marudhar Agrico, Rani.WRIT PETITION NO. 4148/98. 6. In the writ petition No. 4148/98 the petitioner Arun Singh pleaded that after issuing the charge sheet dated June 1, 1998, the respondents passed an order dated August 10, 1998 transferring the petitioner from Jaipur to Chennai (Madras). For effecting the transfer of the petitioner the competent authority is the Director General which post is presently held by P.P. Das (respondent No.2). The petitioner has been transferred on account of biased attitude and malafide intentions to debar the petitioner from approaching this court for protection of his fundamental rights and further victimizing/harassing him as well. The transfer order has been passed and communicated through fax under extra ordinary circumstances without there being any administrative exigency with a positive direction to relieve the petitioner on August 14, 1998. The respondents have framed the transfer policy for posting officers including the transfer policy applicable for Group A Officers. The Petitioner is a Group A officer. As per transfer policy the officers on a particular station become due for transfer after completing six years of services. The officers having longer stay are preferred and transferred first unless the choice of untimely transfer is given. In Jaipur Branch Office the petitioner has been transferred from Patna in the year 1992. He has just completed six years of his service. The officers who already completed more than 7 to 10 years of services have not been transferred. This dearly shows that the respondents have exercised the powers arbitrarily. Presently there is a shortage of about four officers at Jaipur Branch office in view of increasing work load in the office but the transfer of the petitioner has been made in order to victimise him. This dearly shows that the respondents have exercised the powers arbitrarily. Presently there is a shortage of about four officers at Jaipur Branch office in view of increasing work load in the office but the transfer of the petitioner has been made in order to victimise him. It has been laid down in the transfer policy that organised yearly transfers from one station to another shall be notified in the month of January to March each year therefore if at all it is to be construed that the untimely transfer of petitioner in the month of August 1998, has been made on the ground that charge sheet has been filed against him, then also the transfer amounts to punishment which cannot be imposed unless the petitioner is held guilty. Transferring the petitioner to a far away place from the place where departmental inquiry is pending, is highly unjustified, malicious and deserves to be quashed. 7. The respondents in their written statement averred that they did not violate the transfer policy. The petitioner admittedly completed six years of service at Jaipur and the petitioner's transfer was expedited on the request and advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer who considered it proper to transfer not only the petitioner Arun Singh but also another officer P.P. Singh for the reason that Departmental Enquiry in respect of serious charges was going to be held. Transfer of the petitioner from sensitive posting in Jaipur to non-sensitive posting in Chennai has been effected depending on the nature of the charges against the petitioner, relevant instructions of the Central Government and the interest of the organisation. The transfer is not a punishment but only a preventive measure from vigilance angle. As per directions of Ministry of Home Affairs, those officers who do not have reputation of honesty should not be placed on posts where there is a considerable scope for discretion. The petitioner Arun Singh was promoted by respondent No.2 in November 1997, thus he had no reason to act against the petitioner with any bias or malafide as alleged. Affidavit of respondent No.2 denying the allegations has been filed by the respondents. 8. In rejoinder the petitioner stated that the vigilance department is under administrative control of the Director General. Non-sensitive posts are available at Jaipur. Affidavit of respondent No.2 denying the allegations has been filed by the respondents. 8. In rejoinder the petitioner stated that the vigilance department is under administrative control of the Director General. Non-sensitive posts are available at Jaipur. It would be highly inequitable and prejudicial for the respondents to transfer him to far off place and participate in departmental proceedings. The personal affidavit filed by respondent No.2 is no affidavit in the eye of law as not a single fact has been controverted by him. 9. Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner attempted to establish that impugned charge sheets are absurd and baseless and have been issued on account of biased attitude and malafide intention of respondent No.2. It was vehemently canvassed by demonstrating the alleged blank D/V report alongwith other documents that charge sheets are concocted and fabricated and no prudent person on a bare perusal of the substance of allegations would recommend the issuance of charge sheets under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. The allegations of taking bribe against the petitioner are based on conjectures and surmises lacking in material particulars and without any basis. Placing reliance on the various pronouncements Mr. Kuhad contended that if the charges are found to be groundless or void abinitio or when charge sheet has been issued without jurisdiction or capricious or malafide use of power or on baseless grounds and there has been a total non-application of mind, this court can quash the charge sheet invoking the provisions contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed on (1) Dr. B.K. Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan [1992 (1) RLR 2101 and it was urged that element of error or negligence in performing duties cannot be said 'misconduct' unless coupled with dishonest and malafide action. In respect of transfer of petitioner Arun Singh it was canvassed that obviously it was made with malafide intention. 10. Mr. C.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand contended that charge sheets have been issued strictly on the basis of investigation after charges of misconduct were found prima facie established. The inquiry officer is an independent authority nominated by the Central Vigilance Commission and all the relevant facts may be placed before him. The allegations of malafide and personal animosity have been refuted by respondent No.2 by filing the counter affidavit. The inquiry officer is an independent authority nominated by the Central Vigilance Commission and all the relevant facts may be placed before him. The allegations of malafide and personal animosity have been refuted by respondent No.2 by filing the counter affidavit. Placing reliance on the ratio of (2) Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1964 SC 72 ) Mr. C.N. Sharma learned counsel canvassed that allegations of personal animosity have been repelled by Mr. Das respondent No.2 by filing his counter affidavit denying the said allegations on oath therefore the allegations should be brushed aside. Conclusion in respect of the charge should not be reached on an appreciation of affidavits and documents. The truth and correctness of the charges at a stage prior to the conclusions of the disciplinary enquiry is not a matter for the High Court to go into enquiry. The charges are based on comprehensive investigation made by vigilance department and under these circumstances this court should not go into truth of the allegations. Reliance was placed on (3) M/s. Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagu Bhai Balu Bhai Patel ( AIR 1976 SC 98 ) , (4) State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222) , (5) Transport Commissioner Madras v. A Radha Kirshna Moorthy ( 1995(1) SCC 332 ) and (6) U.O.I. v. B.K. Srivastava ( 1998 (6) SCC 340 ) . In respect of transfer it was urged that it was made in accordance with the transfer policy and on the basis of recommendation of vigilance department. Reliance was placed on (7) Shilpa Bose v. State of Bihar (1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659 and (8) State of U.P. and another v. V.N. Prasad (Dr.) (1995 Supp. (2) SCC 151) . 11. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record as well as case law placed before me. 12. In Transport Commissioner v. A. Radha K. Moorthy (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that at a stage prior to conclusion of disciplinary inquiry the High Court should not discuss the truth and correctness of the charges. 13. 12. In Transport Commissioner v. A. Radha K. Moorthy (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that at a stage prior to conclusion of disciplinary inquiry the High Court should not discuss the truth and correctness of the charges. 13. State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (supra) was the case wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court had observed that High Court in its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution should not appreciate the affidavits and documents produced before it by treating them as evidence, delving into the disputed questions of fact. 14. In Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagu Bai (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus - (Para 10) "The onus of establishing a plea of victimisation will be upon the person pleading it. Since a charge of victimisation is a serious matter reflecting to degree, upon the subjective attitude of the employer evidenced by acts and conduct, these have to be established by safe and sure evidence. Mere allegations, vague suggestions and insinuations are not enough. All particulars of the charge brought out, if believed, must be weighed by the Tribunal and a conclusion should be reached on a totality of the evidence produced." 15. I have closely scrutinised the affidavits and documents placed on record by the rival parties and I am unable to pursuade myself to go into the truth and correctness of the charges at this stage after treating the affidavits and documents as evidence, delving into the disputed questions of fact. I agree with Mr. Kuhad learned counsel, that High Court can quash the charge sheet invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution if charges are found to be groundless or void abinitio or when charge sheet has been issued malafidely and with a total non-application of mind but in the instant case allegations of malafides have been countered by the respondent No.2 by filing his personal affidavit. Thus the ratio of Pratap Singh's case (supra) does not help the petitioner. In that case counter affidavit of the Chief Minister was not filed and under those circumstances the allegations of malafides were taken into consideration. I do not find merit in the submission of Mr. Kuhad learned counsel that affidavit of Mr. Das respondent No.2 is no affidavit in the eye of law. In that case counter affidavit of the Chief Minister was not filed and under those circumstances the allegations of malafides were taken into consideration. I do not find merit in the submission of Mr. Kuhad learned counsel that affidavit of Mr. Das respondent No.2 is no affidavit in the eye of law. In my considered opinion the plea of victimisation can be established by the petitioners before the Enquiry officer by safe and sure evidence. 16. Now I proceed to consider the rival submissions in respect of transfer of petitioner Arun Singh. Admittedly petitioner Arun Singh has been transferred from Jaipur to Chennai whereas similarly situated person P.P. Singh has been transferred from Jaipur to Delhi. The contention of petitioner is that transfer is against the transfer policy, it amounts to punishment and is highly unjustified and malicious. On the other hand the respondents pleaded that transfer was made on the recommendations of the Chief Vigilance Officer from sensitive posting to non-sensitive posting at Chennai. It is not a punishment but only a preventive measure from vigilance angle. 17. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (supra) it was indicated that interference with a transfer order should not be made unless it is in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. 18. Expressing similar view in State of U.P. v. V.N. Prasad (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that in absence of prima facie material to establish malafides the High Court should not interfere with the transfer order. Nature of evidence to establish malafide has to be strong and convincing. 19. After weighing the pleadings of the parties and material on record I am of the view that petitioner Arun Singh has been transferred after completion of -six years and on the basis of recommendations of Chief Vigilance Officer from sensitive posting to non-sensitive posting. As counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 denying the allegations made against him, I am further of the view that the respondents were within their rights to transfer the petitioner from Jaipur as he had completed six years of service at Jaipur. But I see malafide intention of the respondents in giving dissimilar treatment to the similar situated charge sheeted persons Arun Singh and P.P. Singh. But I see malafide intention of the respondents in giving dissimilar treatment to the similar situated charge sheeted persons Arun Singh and P.P. Singh. The respondents, looking to the pendency of departmental enquiry against the petitioner Arun Singh, could have transferred him to non-sensitive posting at nearby State. From giving dissimilar treatment to similarly situated persons, the malafide action of respondents is established. In my considered opinion transferring the petitioner Arun Singh from Jaipur where departmental enquiry is pending against him to a far away place at Chennai is highly unjustified particularly in view of the fact that other similarly (situated) person P.P. Singh has been transferred to nearby place at Delhi. The transfer order dated August 10, 1998 is thus arbitrary and discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. Resultantly, in view of discussions indicated hereinabove the writ petition bearing No. 4136/98 stands dismissed. While allowing the writ petition bearing No.4148/98 in part I set aside the transfer order dated August 10, 1998 of the petitioner Arun Singh with the observation that the respondents shall be at liberty to transfer him giving him non-sensitive posting at a nearby place from Jaipur so as to enable him to attend the departmental enquiry without much trouble. Costs easy.Petition No. 4136/98 dismissed and Petition No. 4148/98 partly allowed. *******