JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, A.C.J. 1. Questioning legality of the order of her transfer, Petitioner, an employee of the office of Accountant General. Orissa, has come before this Court via the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short, the 'Tribunal'). 2. Petitioner has tried to highlight that she has been transferred because she ventured to make allegations against some members of the staff of sexual harassment. She has also attributed various motives for effecting the transfer. The Tribunal found that the allegations are unfounded. It was' noted that the Petitioner was posted in a transferable job from 1989. Petitioner, as is undisputed has been transferred from Bhubaneswar to Puri. 3. The learned Additional Standing Counsel (Central) submitted that the transfer order has been passed by the Accountant General (opposite party No. 1) against whom there is not even a whisper of any harassment, much less sexual harassment. The allegation made is utterly frivolous, as has been elaborately discussed by the Tribunal. Further the transfer has been made because it was felt necessary after opening of a section in the D.A.G's office at Puri. According to him, the transfer having been made in exigencies of service, Petitioner cannot make any grievance. 4. We shall first deal with the plea relating to violation of protection given to women employees in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. O.T. 1997 (7) S.C. 384. The said judgment has highlighted that it is the duty of every employer or other responsible persons in work places or other institutions to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the procedure for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts or sexual harassment by taking all steps required. For this, purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behavior (whether directly or by, implication) as-(a) physical contact and advances; (b) a demand or request for sexual favors; (c) sexually colored remarks; (d) showing pornography; (e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. 5. No allegation has been made against the authority directing transfer. They were in fact attributed to another officer. The plea of Mr. 5. No allegation has been made against the authority directing transfer. They were in fact attributed to another officer. The plea of Mr. Misra, learned Counsel for Petitioner that the senior officers are teamed up against the Petitioner is too hollow to be accepted, and we find no material placed on record to support such an allegation. In case the Petitioner has suffered from any sexual harassment, obviously necessary action as contemplated in the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (in short,' the 'Rules') more particularly Rule 3(1)(iii) is to be taken note of. Some provides that every Government servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. There is no material to show that with a view to harass the Petitioner for having made allegations of sexual harassment, the transfer order was passed. It needs no elaboration that the authorities have the right to transfer an employee as transfer is incidence of service and the order of transfer cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides and violation of statutory or mandatory Rules. It has not been indicated as to how there has been violation of statutory or mandatory Rules. 6. The scope of judicial review of transfer of public servants is absolutely dear in view of the series of decisions rendered by the Apex Court. 7. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, the Apex Court, inter alia, held that where a competent authority issues transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered with by the Court merely because the transfer orders were passed on the request of the employees concerned. It was further held that the Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. It was also held that transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights and even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. The Apex Court in Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another. held as follows: After considering the respective contentions of the parties, it appears to us that the Appellant has not been able to substantiate that the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide against him for an oblique purpose and/or for wrecking vengeance against him because the Respondent No. 2 was anxious to get rid of him and he seized the opportunity of transferring him from Delhi to Calcutta by transferring Shri Patra back to Orissa from Calcutta. It is true that the order of transfer often Causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters of consideration of the department. Were in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal that the Appellant has not been able to lay any firm foundation to substantiate the case of malice or mala fide against the Respondents in passing the impugned order of transfer. It does.not appear to us that the Appellant has been moved out just to get rid of him and the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide by seizing an opportunity to transfer Shri Patra to Orissa from Calcutta. It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions. In this case, we are unable to draw any inference of mala fide action in transferring the Appellant from the facts pleaded before the Tribunal. It appears that Shri Patra was transferred to Calcutta and after joining the post he had made representation on account of personal hardship. Such representation was considered and a decision was taken to transfer him back to Orissa region. As a result, a necessity arose to transfer an employee to Calcutta to replace Shri Patra. It cannot be reasonably contended, by the Appellant that he should have been spared and some one else would have been transferred. The Appellant has not made any representation about the personal hardship to the department. As such there was no occasion for the department to Consider such representation. This appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed but we make no order as to costs. It is however, made clear that the Appellant will be free to make representation to the concerned department about personal hardship if any being suffered by the Appellant in view of the impugned order. It is reasonably expected that if such representation is made, the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable:" In Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, the Apex Court also considered the scope of interference by the Courts with transfer and we quote below the observations made at paragraphs 7 and 10 of the judgment: 7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer; there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. While ordering the transfer; there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right:' "10. The said observations in fact tend to negative the Respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the Respondent's contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefore. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any, of the administrative instruction/guidelines are not followed, much less can it be Characterized as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. In State of Punjab and others Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt, it was held that the Apex Court had time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. It was also held that ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. In Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas, the Apex Court held that employee holding transferable posts have no vested right to remain in the original circle in the Department of Telecommunication of Government of India. In State of Madhya Pradesh, and Another Vs. S.S. Kourav and Others the Apex Court held that the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds and the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. S.S. Kourav and Others the Apex Court held that the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds and the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It was also held that it is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. When transfer order is issued on administrative grounds, the Court cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place. The footing on which the Petitioner has attributed mala fides as indicated above has no foundation. 8. Above being the position, we find no merit to entertain the writ application. It is open to the Petitioner to join the new place of posting. We express no opinion in that regard. The writ application is dismissed. No costs. B. P. Das, J. I-agree. Application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed