A. LALA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by a single bench of this Hon'ble Court on 21st December, 1997 in disposing a writ petition being C. O. No. 925 (W) of 1994. ( 2 ) THE respondent/writ petitioner was posted as Assistant Driller in the office of Executive Engineer, Northern Mechanical Division at Siliguri under Directorate of Public Health Engineering Government of West Bengal. ( 3 ) ON 27th May, 1987 he made an application before the authority for voluntary transfer in the office of Suri Sub-Division under Bankura Mechanical Division in view of his personal difficulty to stay in North Bengal. No effect of such application was given for about 4 years. Subsequently by an application dated 22nd March, 1991 he voluntarily withdrew such application due to changed circumstances. But before reaching such application for withdrawal an effect of transfer was given to the said incumbent treating the said transfer as "mutual transfer" in between the writ petitioner and one Sri Bidya Sagar Mahanta. According to the writ petitioner there was no prayer for mutual transfer. ( 4 ) THE respondent/writ petitioner made a representation to the concerned Superintending Engineer requesting him to cancel transfer order and for allowing him to stay at Siliguri. By an office memo No. 951 dated 14th May, 1992 the Executive Engineer intimated the concerned Superintending Engineer regarding transfer and release of the writ petitioner with a request to submit an application for transfer indicating his choice of posting within 7 days and it was further informed that the petitioner had already become surplus at Siliguri under the Northern Mechanical Division due to joining of said Sri Bidya Sagar Mahanta. ( 5 ) THE Superintending Engineer by a letter dated 21st July, 1992 being annexure 'g' to the writ petition forwarded the representation of the writ petitioner to the concerned Chief Engineer with a request to cancel his order of transfer on compassionate ground. After about 2 years the Chief Engineer by an office memo dated 8th December, 1993 informed that transfer order dated 29th April, 1991 was made on the prayer of the petitioner and his further prayer for cancellation of transfer order could not be acceded to and that the petitioner should be released immediately without any excuse. After about 2 years the Chief Engineer by an office memo dated 8th December, 1993 informed that transfer order dated 29th April, 1991 was made on the prayer of the petitioner and his further prayer for cancellation of transfer order could not be acceded to and that the petitioner should be released immediately without any excuse. In the said letter the concerned Chief Engineer also expressed surprise for not releasing the petitioner for more than 2 years. ( 6 ) THE petitioner was on leave in between 17th December, 1993 to 12th January, 1994 within which he proceeded with the writ petition in this Hon'ble Court and obtained an interim order not to give effect or further effect of the impugned order of transfer until further order. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petitioner submitted a joining report on 12th January, 1994 alongwith a prayer for commuted leave for the period from 17th December, 1993 to 11th January, 1994. ( 8 ) IN the premises, the concerned Executive Engineer wanted a decision of the concerned Superintending Engineer on the issue that the petitioner was released on 17th December, 1993 and the release order was communicated to him on that very day but the petitioner did not take delivery of the order and then release order was sent to his home address by registered post but the postal department returned the letter on 27th December, 1993 with the remark "left without address". This statement was opposed by the write petitioner by saying that no release order was tendered to him on 17th December, 1993 or ever or that he refused to take delivery of the release order. ( 9 ) IN course of the proceeding a development took place, that is, by an office order dated 26th July, 1994 being annexure 'd' to the affidavit-in-opposition the Chief Engineer transferred the petitioner back to its original position at Siliguri. ( 10 ) THE learned Judge proceeded with the writ petition also found from the affidavit of the Chief Engineer of the concerned authority dated 13th November, 1995 at the day of concluding the arguments as on 28th November, 1995 that order of re-transfer of the writ petitioner had in the meantime been issued. Accordingly, His Lordship was pleased to direct the petitioner to report for duty on the next day at Siliguri pursuant to the transfer order of 26th July, 1994. Accordingly, His Lordship was pleased to direct the petitioner to report for duty on the next day at Siliguri pursuant to the transfer order of 26th July, 1994. The petitioner, accordingly, reported for duty at Siliguri on 29th November, 1995. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, the question arose before the writ court is to regularisation of the service period from 17th December, 1993 to 11th January, 1984 and also 12th January, 1994 till 28th November, 1995. ( 12 ) BY the impugned judgment and order, learned trial judge was pleased to regularise the leave for the period from 17th December, 1993 to 11th January, 1994, both days inclusive by treating the same as extraordinary leave but without pay and period starts from 12th January, 1994 till 28th November, 1995 by treating the same as actual duty. On such basis, the original order of the transfer dated 29th April, 1991 being annexure 'd' to the writ petition was quashed. ( 13 ) BEING aggrieved thereby the appeal was preferred by the authority. According to the appellant service of the incumbant may be regularised but without any pay for both the period started from 17th December, 1993 to 11th January, 1994 and 12th January, 1994 to 28th November, 1995. ( 14 ) IN this context, it is pertinent to mention that the trial court has already regularised the leave for the period in between 17th December, 1993 to 11th January, 1994 without pay and the respondent/employee did not prefer any cross appeal. Therefore, question of granting any payment for the above period does not arise at all. ( 15 ) THEREFORE, the remaining question before the appeal court is to consider the regularisation of the service of the respondent/employees with or without pay for the period started from 12th January, 1994 to 28th November, 1995. ( 16 ) THE bone of contention of the argument of the appellant is that although the order of re-transfer dated 26th July, 1994 was served personally by the Chief Engineer of the appellant authority to the respondent/writ petitioner in his offie even then the respondent/writ petitioner failed to report in his duty at Siliguri till 29th November, 1995. Therefore, a disciplinary action should have to be taken against the respondent writ petitioner or he will be not entitled for any monetary benefit for the period as aforesaid. Therefore, a disciplinary action should have to be taken against the respondent writ petitioner or he will be not entitled for any monetary benefit for the period as aforesaid. ( 17 ) BEFORE going into such allegation we have to consider whether stand taken by the appellant authority is appropriate or not. Therefore, the standard of proof is to be satisfied on the basis of balance of probabilities following the decision reported in (1987) 1 SCC 227 (Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi v. Shibaji Rao Nilangekar Patil and Ors. ). ( 18 ) IT appears that the authority is very much reluctant in considering the prayers of an employee. For an example, the concerned Chief Engineer took about 4 years time to give effect of the prayer for voluntary transfer of the incumbent when the circumstances was changed and he had no need of such transfer. It is surprising that the effect of such voluntary transfer is given after 4 years treating the same as mutual transfer without any such prayer. Similarly the authority, specially the concerned Chief Engineer took about 2 years time to consider the representation of the respondent/writ petitioner. ( 19 ) KEEPING in the mind the aforesaid conduct on the part of the appellant now we have to analyse affidavit-in-opposition of the appellant authority by the pen of the concerned Chief Engineer dated 13th November, 1995 filed before the writ court. Surprisingly we found that the concerned Chief Engineer sitting in Calcutta office personally handed over an office order of re-transfer to the incumbent subsequent to such order dated 26th July, 1994 in spite of availing the office procedure for such service to him at the place of service at Siliguri. Naturally the following question arose :- (A)if at all such office order was passed by the authority on 26th July, 1994 and issued subsequently personally by the concerned Chief Engineer what prevented the authority to come before the Hon'ble Court and to explain the position instead of making such averment in an affidavit long thereafter only on 13th November, 1995 and brought into the notice of the learned trial Judge only on 28th November, 1995? (b)is it believable that in spite of service of office order of re-transfer on 26th July, 1994 the writ petitioner withheld the same with him without joining in duty only to prolong the litigation till 29th November, 1995 unnecessarily when his purpose is served long before? ( 20 ) THE aforesaid questions remain unanswered. It appears to us that the averments made in the affidavit is net outcome of afterthought. The principle of balance of probabilities says that the onus of the appellant is not discharged so as to call upon the respondent to meet such type of averments in reply irrespective of their nature of statements made therein. ( 21 ) WE, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the trial court. Trial court's order stands. Appeal is dismissed but no order as to costs. S. K. Mookherjee, AC. J.-I agree with conclusion. The Court : After the judgment was delivered, a prayer for stay of operation was made. The same is considered and refused. Appeal dismissed.