Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 27.6.98 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur by which the petitioner has been transferred from Officer Incharge of Kalyanpur to Officer Incharge, Bibhutipur and the wireless message dated 14.11.98 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Darbhanga Range to Palarnu Range by order of the Director-General of Police. Copies of the said orders have been annexed as Annexures-3 and 5 respectively. 2. The petitioner joined the police department in the year 1984 as Steno-Sub-Inspector of Police. Later on, he was observed in general cadre of the Sub-Inspector of Police. He remained in Muzaffarpur Zone from 1984 to May, 1997. Thereafter, he was transferred to Darbhanga Zone on 13.6.1997 and was posted as Officer Incharge, Kalyanpur Police Station where he joined on 28.11.97. By order dated 27.6.98 as contained in Annexure-3, he was transferred to Bibhutipur in the same capacity and thereafter, he was transferred from Darbhanga Range to Palamu Range by order contained in Annexure-5. 3. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner in the main writ application that he was remained in Darbhanga only from 13.6.97 and as such his transfer initially from Kalyanpur to Bibhutipur where he remained only for few months and thereafter from Darbhanga Zone to Palamu Zone are arbitrary and mala-fide. In Paragraph 7 of the writ application, it has been stated that local M.L.A.-cum-Minister was annoyed with the petitioner and at her instance transfer has been effected. 4. Two counter-affidavits have been filed one on behalf of the Superintendent of Police and D.I.G. of Police, Darbhanga Range on 19.3.99 and the other on behalf of the Director-General of Police on 23.3.99. The stand in the counter-affidavits is that the transfer of the petitioner has been made purely on administrative ground and in public interest. In this connection, it has been stated that the petitioner was entangled with one Usha Shrivastava constable. Despite protest by the wife of the petitioner, his illicit relation continued as a result of winch wife of the petitioner committed suicide on 3.7.98 with regard to which a U.D. case was lodged on 4.7.98 by the daughter of the deceased. A copy of the said U.D. case has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by Superintendent of Police. A copy of the said U.D. case has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by Superintendent of Police. It is further stated that the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur reported the matter to the D.I.G., Mithila range, requesting transfer of the petitioner to a different place to maintain a discipline in the service. Even relations of the petitioner complained about the behaviour of the petitioner to DIG, Tirhut range. It further appears that by way of local arrangement after the death of his wife, the petitioner was transferred from Kalyanpur to Bibhutipur Police Station. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Director-General of Police who after going through the matter, passed order of transfer of petitioner from Darbhanga range to Palamu range. Aforesaid Usha Srivastava was transferred to Koshi range, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 as stated above. Thus, the stand of respondent-State and his officers is that his transfer has been made purely on administrative ground without being influenced by anyone much less the M.L.A.-cum-Minister. 5. After filing of the counter-affidavits, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit on 26.3.99 wherein he has made allegations against the State Minister of welfare Smt. Sita Sinha. It is stated that she demanded Rs. 10,000.00 (ten thousand) as bribe and when the petitioner did not oblige, she has got him transferred. In this connection, several documents have been appended to show animosity of the minister towards the petitioner. The notice was issued to respondent No. 9 on 2.12.98. However, this Court after having noticed that there was no specific allegation against respondent No. 9, in the writ application by order dated 11.3.99 ordered that it is not necessary to notice on her. However, she has appeared and filed an affidavit on her behalf sworn by her Private Secretary wherein she has denied the allegations. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer is not only arbitrary but is also actuated by mala fide inasmuch as the petitioner has been transferred because he incurred displeasure of the Minister against whom he had complained earlier. 7. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand, submitted that the Minister has nothing to do so far as transfer of the petitioner is concerned. 7. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand, submitted that the Minister has nothing to do so far as transfer of the petitioner is concerned. The transfer of the petitioner has been made solely on administrative ground keeping in view the behaviour of the petitioner as detailed in the counter-affidavit. 8. Transfer is an incident, of service and no employee can claim as a matter of right to remain posted at one place. However, if the order of transfer is either arbitrary or mala fide or in breach of statutory provisions, then a case is made out for interference by this Court. 9. The question is as to whether this is a case where the order of transfer is to be interfered with. In view of the fact that petitioner has been now transferred from Darbhanga range to Palamu range, the question of his transfer from Kalyanpur to Bibhutipur is of no significance. The only question remains to be considered is whether the transfer order to Palamu range is actuated by mala fide. The averment made in the cannier affidavit show that, the petitioner was entangled with constable Usha Srivastava and when the matter was brought to the notice of Superintendent of Police, he conveyed the same to the higher authorities. Even children of petitioner complained about the matter and thereafter, the order has been passed by which the petitioner has been transferred to Palamu Zone. Aforesaid ground, if my view, is a good ground for transfer. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that is not the real ground for transfer. On the other hand, the transfer has been made at the instance of Minister. In this connection, I have already stated that there was only vague assertion in the main writ application. To prove a mala fide, direct evidence may not be available in all the cases. The Court may draw an inference from the facts and the materials brought on the record. But, unless a clear-cut case is brought on the basis of reliable material, the Court cannot act on the basis of allegations and insinuations only. There is nothing on record to show that at the instance of the Minister, the petitioner was transferred. The Court may draw an inference from the facts and the materials brought on the record. But, unless a clear-cut case is brought on the basis of reliable material, the Court cannot act on the basis of allegations and insinuations only. There is nothing on record to show that at the instance of the Minister, the petitioner was transferred. Respondent No. 9, however, filed an affidavit denying allegations made against her but even if that affidavit is not taken into consideration, there is nothing on record to show that at her instance the order of transfer has been effected. It is on the basis of the report of the S.P. Samastipur and DIG of Darbhanga and Tirhut range the order of transfer has been passed transferring the petitioner from one Range to other. Usha Srivastava was also transferred to Koshi range and she had also made a prayer before this Court for staying her transfer order but the same has been rejected, a copy of which is Annexures-E to the counter-affidavit. 10. Thus, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no case to interfere with the order of transfer is made out. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Interim order dated 2.12.1998 is vacated.