JUDGMENT : P.C. Naik, J. - The petitioner herein, the Notified Area Council, Bhuban, has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 25.5.1998 issued by the Government of Orissa in the Housing and Urban Development Department cancelling the order dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure-3) whereby opp. party No. 4 - Gobinda Chandra Naik was transferred and posted on a Senior Assistant in the Athagarh Notified Area Council against a vacant post. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that opp. party No. 4 being a local person was indulging in politics instead of devoting his time and energy for the official work. He was deeply involved in local politics and was disclosing official matters'to the general public as well as the Press. There was a special audit in the year, 1992-93 in which opp. party No. 4 (Gobinda Chandra Naik) was found to have misappropriated some funds of the N.A.C. Accordingly, it was felt that his continuance with the petitioner was not in the interest of the Council and therefore, a letter (Annexure-1) was sent to the Director, Municipal Administration (bpp. party No. 5) requesting for his (Shri Naik's) transfer to some other place. Since no action was taken on the said letter, another letter (Annexure-2) was sent with a similar request. Thereafter, the matter, avers the petitioner, was enquired into and an order of transfer dated 4.5.1 998 (Annexure-3) was issued transferring and posting opp. party No. 4 to Athagarh Notified Area Council. Though opp. party No. 4 came to the office, he refused to accept the transfer order and arrogantly left the office taking away the keys of the office almirah with him. On being moved, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamakshyanagar deputed the Tahasildar-cMm-Executive Magistrate in whose presence the lock of the almirah containing the records was broken and after preparing an inventory, charge of the documents/files was taken over by the N.A.C. A letter was also addressed by the petitioner to opp. party No. 5 for taking suitable action against opp. party No. 4 for disobedience and misconduct. However, asserts the petitioner, instead of taking any action, as requested by opp. party No. 4, the order of his transfer has been illegally cancelled. The petitioner again wrote to opp. party No. 5 that in the background of the facts and the antecedents and conduct of opp. party No. 4 for disobedience and misconduct. However, asserts the petitioner, instead of taking any action, as requested by opp. party No. 4, the order of his transfer has been illegally cancelled. The petitioner again wrote to opp. party No. 5 that in the background of the facts and the antecedents and conduct of opp. party No. 4, it would not be desirable or proper for opp. party No. 4 to continue at Bhuban and as such, the order cancelling his transfer should be recalled. No action having been taken thereon, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief. 3. Though notices were issued and the Additional Government Advocate, vide Order dated 5.8.1998, was directed to obtain full instructions and produce the record, no counter has been filed on behalf of opp. party No. 1 to 3 and 5. However, the record, as directed, was produced for our perusal at the time of hearing. 4. A counter has been filed by opp. party No. 4 opposing the petition. Therein, it is asserted that the order of transfer being illegal and mala fide was rightly cancelled by opp. party No. 5. In substances, it is his case that as he (opp. party No. 4) was not supporting the illegal and corrupt activities of the Chairman of the N.AC., he incurred his wrath which led to the request to the State Government for his transfer. One of the reasons for the Chairman's annoyance, asserts opp. party No. 4, is his (O.P. No. 4's) action in levying octroi on the lubricants brought within the Notified Area by the Chairman who runs a petrol pump. It is his further case that the Chairman is giving protection to some corrupt and indisciplined employees and as he (O.P. No. 4) is not towing his line, his continuance at Bhuban N.A.C. is not being liked. As regards the allegation relating to the audit report that opp. party No. 4 has misappropriated the N.A.C. funds, it is averred that he had submitted a show-cause regarding the audit objection explaining that the amount in question was not misappropriated but was utilised for the purpose for which it was advanced and the corresponding voucher had already been submitted. It is also his case that though there are allegations against others, he alone has been singled out. It is also his case that though there are allegations against others, he alone has been singled out. It is his further case that in 1993 initially when he was transferred to Dhenkanal Municipality, the public at. large had expressed their discontentment and on an enquiry a number of irregularities were found in the functioning of the N.A.C. In substance, the case of opp. party No. 4 is that being upright and straight-forward, he has been victimised. 5. The learned counsel for the parties stuck to their respective stands taken in the petition and the counter, and took us through the documents filed by them. The State, however, having not filed any counter, the learned counsel for the State produced the record before us for our perusal and tried to justify the action of the State in cancelling the transfer of opp. party No. 4 vide Annexure-7. We, for reasons to follow, are not impressed by the same. 6. From the record we find that apart from a request from the petitioner, the Executive Officer, Bhuban N.A.C. had also written to the Government for transfer of opp. party No. 4 from the said N.A.C. on the ground that he (O.P. No. 4) was neglecting his duties and responsibilities assigned to him and was creating groupism amongst the staff and not attending the work which as kept pending; that he was involved in local politics and did not even hesitate to disclose official matters to the public at large; that being a local man and involved in politics, opp. party No. 4 considers himself to be great and does not deal with either the authorities or his co-workers properly and that his continuance at the N.A.C. would not be proper. We also find from the record that after the order transferring opp. party No. 4 was passed, a communication was addressed to the Director, Municipal Administration (opp. party No. 5) by some Councillors praying for cancellation of the transfer of opp. party No. 4. A letter was also addressed to the Minister of State, Urban Development, by the M.L. A., Kamakshyanagar for the said purpose. Also there finds place in the record, a copy of the letter addressed to the State Minister, Urban Development that opp. party No. 5) by some Councillors praying for cancellation of the transfer of opp. party No. 4. A letter was also addressed to the Minister of State, Urban Development, by the M.L. A., Kamakshyanagar for the said purpose. Also there finds place in the record, a copy of the letter addressed to the State Minister, Urban Development that opp. party No. 4 (Gobinda Chandra Naik) was trying to get his transfer from Bhuban cancelled on the basis of a representation purported to have been signed by many Councillors when in fact many signatures thereof were not genuine. Said letter is signed by the Chairperson, Vice- Chairperson and seven other persons who have stated themselves to be the Councillors of Bhuban N.A.C. from the note-sheets of the Government record, we find that in the note of the Under Secretary which is dated 16.5.1998, all the aforesaid factors were taken into consideration and it was mentioned that Shri Nayak (opp. party No. 4) had already been relieved from Bhuban N.A.C. and his case for cancellation of the transfer order needs no consideration, and that the E.O. may be instructed to ensure handing over/taking over charge from Shri Nayak and report compliance. Thereafter, we find another note dated 22.5.1998 (probably of the G.M.A.) which reads thus : " This is regarding transfer case of one Govind Ch. Nayak, Sr. Asst., Bhuban N.A.C. Notes preceding explains the position. Shri Nayak was transferred to Talcher from Bhuban N.A.C. The local M.L.A. has requested Govt. to cancel his transfer order. The honourable Minister U.D. has desired for cancellation of the said order. Hence the transfer order of Shri G. Naik may be cancelled as desired by Honourable Minister. For kind approval." The file was ultimately marked to the Commissioner-cwm-Secretary of the Department who made the following endorsement : "Cancelled." And Accordingly the impugned order (Annexure-7) was passed cancelling the order of transfer of opp. party No. 4 (Annexure-3). 7. Having considered the mater from all aspects, we are of the opinion that the impugned order (Annexure-7) cannot be sustained. As is clear from the Government record, the only reason for cancelling the transfer order is the desire of the concerned Minister and the request of the local M.L.A. If on the basis of the representation received it was desired to re-consider the order of transfer of opp. As is clear from the Government record, the only reason for cancelling the transfer order is the desire of the concerned Minister and the request of the local M.L.A. If on the basis of the representation received it was desired to re-consider the order of transfer of opp. party No. 4, what was expected of the authorities was to have looked into the matter so as to consider whether or not any real ground did exist there for cancelling the order of transfer; more so when the order of transfer was on the basis of the complaints made against opp. party No. 4 and the report of the Executive Officer of the N.A.C. 8. Orders of transfers are not to be passed merely for being cancelled at the sweet will of the authorities. The fact that some of the Councillors had specifically alleged in the letter that opp. party No. 4 was trying for a cancellation of his transfer by falsely alleging that a number of Councillors had signed the representation, ought not to have been brushed aside in the casual manner in which it has been done. On the contrary, it ought to have been taken seriously. This unfortunately has not been done in the instant case. Apparently, the transfer was in public interest. There is nothing on the record to indicate that it was not so. On the contrary, the file indicates and as has been observed in the earlier part of the judgment, the transfer was cancelled merely as per the desire of the concerned Minister of State and the recommendation of the local M.L.A. That is hardly a ground for cancellation of an order of transfer which was passed in public interest. On the contrary, from the narration of the facts, there appears to be some truth in the averments of the petitioner that being a local person, opp. party No. 4 was involving himself in local politics. 9. For the reasons aforesaid the writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.5.1 998 (Annexure-7) whereby the order dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure-3) transferring opp. party No. 4 from the Notified Area Council, Bhuban to the Notified Area Council, Athagarh was cancelled, is quashed. Accordingly, consequences are to follow. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. A. Pasayat, Acting C.J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed