Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Sinha, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. The sole petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayer to quash that part of Notification No. 7670, dated 28-12-98 (Annexure-4), issued by the Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, whereby respondent No. 6 (Bisheshwar Prasad), Executive Engineer, has been transferred the Minor Irrigation Division; Latehar, which is occupied by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, he is an Executive Engineer in the services of the Bihar Government, and his parent department is the Department of Water Resources. By order dated 28-9-97 (Annexure-11 to the Petitioners rejoinder), the petitioner was transferred from his previous place of posting at Jamshedpur to the Department of Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar. As stated above, his parent department, is the Department of Water Resources, and was by this order taken on deputation by the Department of Minor Irrigation. By notification contained in memo No, 2909, dated 9-6-98 (Annexure-1), the petitioners services were returned to the parent department for administrative reasons without giving him specific posting. By notification contained in memo No, 1627, dated 9-10-98 (Annexure-3), the petitioner who was hitherto waiting for posting, was transferred as Executive Engineer in the Water Outlet Research Division, Motihari, which was a vacant post in the parent department itself. By notification contained in memo No. 6298, dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3), the aforesaid order dated 9-6-98(Annexure-1), was cancelled, and the petitioners posting as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar, was restored. By the impugned order contained in memo No. 7970, dated 28-12-98 (Annexure-4), respondent No. 6 has been posted as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar, a post to which the petitioner has been posted vide order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3). 3. The petitioner further prays that Annexures-8, 9 and 10, brought on record as Annexures to the amendment application and are consequential to Annexure : 4, should also be quashed along with Annexure-4. 3. The petitioner further prays that Annexures-8, 9 and 10, brought on record as Annexures to the amendment application and are consequential to Annexure : 4, should also be quashed along with Annexure-4. By the said order dated 9-1-99 (Annexure-8), issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, in the Department of Water Resources, addressed to the petitioner is to the effect that respondent No. 6 has already taken over as Executive Engineer at Latehar on 8-1-99, and was directed to hand over charge to respondent No. 6 and join at Motihari vide Annexure-2, failing which he shall be deemed to have been automatically deprived of his charge w.e.f. 13-1-99. The letter dated 12-1-99 (Annexure-9), issued by the Executive Engineer, Palamu, addressed to the petitioner is in an effort to communicate and carry out the said order dated 9-1-99 (Annexure-8). Annexure-10 is the charge report dated 16-1-99, which bears the signature of both the petitioner and respondent No. 6, whereby the petitioner had handed over charge as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar, to respondent No. 6 on 16-11-99. It must be stated that the said amendment application was allowed by this Court, by order dated 9-3-99, whereby Annexures 8 to 10 have been allowed to be challenged in. the writ petition. 4. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that so long as the aforesaid order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3), is in force, the orders dated 9-6-98 (Annexure-1), and dated 9-10-98 (Annexure-21), cannot have any force. Therefore, the aforesaid order dated 28-11-97 (Annexure-11), stands and has to be given effect to. It was next contended that posting of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council cannot be withdrawn or the services taken back without specific consent of the Council. According to him, the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 898 Asit Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. does not correctly interpret the provision of the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), particularly Sec. 32(2) of the said Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that that part of the order dated 28-12-98 (Annexure-4), insofar as same relates to the posting of respondent. does not correctly interpret the provision of the Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), particularly Sec. 32(2) of the said Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that that part of the order dated 28-12-98 (Annexure-4), insofar as same relates to the posting of respondent. No. 6, at Latehar, may be quashed, along with Annexures 8, 9 and 10 which are, in his submission, consequential to Annexures 4. Consequently, the order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3) may be upheld, it may be declared that the order dated 9-6-98 (Annexure-1), and dated 9-10-98 (Annexure-2), are consequentially unenforceable. 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the aforesaid order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3), was issued by the Minor Irrigation Department which was not authorised to issue the same. Once the services of the petitioner were returned to, or taken back by the parent department, and posted at Motihari by the parent department, the Department of Minor Irrigation was no longer authorised to pass any such order in relating to the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that Annexure-3 was unauthorised, and was perhaps issued on account of the machinations of the petitioner. Relying on the order dated 11-6-98 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit), issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, to the petitioner as well as to one Sunil Kumar Thakur, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Daltonganj, to the effect that the said Sunil Kumar Thakur shall be incharge of the Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar, in addition to his own duties. Accordingly, Sunil Kumar Thakur had taken charge at Latehar on 30-7-98, as is manifest from his communication contained in memo No. 4096 dated 30-7-98 (Annexure-B). He further submitted that the petitioner is acting in an indisciplined manner and is trying to upset the Government orders by his machinations and unnecessary movement. He has not joined at Motihari and he has not worked at all ever since the said order dated 9-10-98 (Annexure-2), was passed transferring him to Motihari. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any salary since 9-10-98, and is also liable to disciplinary proceeding for his failure to carry out the transfer order. He has not joined at Motihari and he has not worked at all ever since the said order dated 9-10-98 (Annexure-2), was passed transferring him to Motihari. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any salary since 9-10-98, and is also liable to disciplinary proceeding for his failure to carry out the transfer order. He further submitted that the post of Executive Engineer at Latehar is no longer vacant as is manifest from Annexures : 8, 9 and 10 as well as Annexure-A. In such circumstances, the petitioner has got to carry out the order dated 9-10-98 (Annexure-4). He lastly submitted that the scope of interference with the transfer order is very limited and relied on the following judgments: (i) 1998 (1) PLJR 5, Dr. Lakshmi Choudhary V/s. Dr. Uma Shankar Pandey (ii) 1998 (3) PLJR 414, Kalp Nath Singh V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted in reply that the aforesaid order dated 9-6-98 (Annexure-1), was issued by the Minor Irrigation Department meaning thereby that the petitioners deputation was not cancelled by the parent department. He further submitted that once the aforesaid order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3), which is also issued by the Minor Irrigation Department, meaning by necessary implication that his deputation to the Minor Irrigation Department, is in fact, Annexures-1 and 2 lose all force. He further submitted on the basis of the averments made in paragraphs-16 and 17 of the counter-affidavit that the said Sunil Kumar Thakur was in temporary charge at Latehar, in addition to his own duties. He further submitted that he was really forced out of office, as is manifest from Annexures 8 to 10. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court -- Commissioner of Police, Bombay V/s. Gordhandas Bhanji, and that of the Patna High Court reported in 19990 (2) BLJ 292 Patna High Court Ministerial Officers Association V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. he submitted that the notification dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3), was issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the same can be rescinded or modified in the same mode and manner and cannot be done by any authority lower than that. The aforesaid order dated 11-6-98 (Annexure-A), has been issued by the Executive Engineer, unenforceable. 8. The aforesaid order dated 11-6-98 (Annexure-A), has been issued by the Executive Engineer, unenforceable. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, I am clearly of the view that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. The aforesaid order dated 9-6-98 (Annexure-1) having been issued in the name of Governor of Bihar, whereby the petitioners services were returned to the parent department, should be taken to be final in this respect. Naturally, therefore, the petitioner lost all connection with the Department of Minor Irrigation and ceased to have no authority whatsoever to pass any order in relation to the petitioner after Annexure-1 was issued. Therefore, the aforesaid order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-2), issued by the Deptt. Of Minor Irrigation, posting the petitioner back to Latehar, is wholly unauthorised. It, therefore, follows as a matter of natural corollary that the aforesaid order dated 9-10-98 (Annexure-2), transferring the petitioner to Motihari, is a valid and enforceable order which has not till date been carried out. This does not speak well of the petitioner who is obviously engaging himself in all kinds of machinations unbecoming of a civil servant. He has surely rendered himself liable for disciplinary proceedings for not carrying out a valid order of transfer, as held by the Privy council in its judgment reported in AIR 1930 Privy Council 118 Alexandre Bouzourou V/s. The Ottoman Bank, wherein it has been held that an employee is bound to obey and carry out a transfer order and his disobedience can justifiably be treated by the employer as a faute grave making the servant liable for dismissal. 9. It is further manifest from the various Annexures that the post of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar, is not vacant, surely since 16-1-99 (Annexure-10), which is the joint charge report dated 16-1-99 of the petitioner and respondent No. 6, clearly stating that the petitioner has handed over, and respondent No. 6 has taken over charge of the office of Executive Engineer, Latehar. 10. I must at this stage deal with the petitioners contention that the , aforesaid order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3), was issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar and in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 11-6-98 (Annexure-A) is unenforceable because it has been issued by the Chief Engineer. 10. I must at this stage deal with the petitioners contention that the , aforesaid order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3), was issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar and in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 11-6-98 (Annexure-A) is unenforceable because it has been issued by the Chief Engineer. The contention is wholly unmerited because, as held above, the orders dated 9-6-98 (Annexure-A), and 9-10-98 (Annexure-2), are valid and enforceable orders and have become final. It has also been held that the aforesaid order dated 7-11-98 (Annexure-3), having been issued by the Department of Minor Irrigation is wholly unauthorised and unenforceable. The aforesaid order dated 11-6-98 (Annexure-A) is only the act of a subordinate official to carry out the aforesaid orders dated 9-6-98 (Annexure-1), and dated 9-10-98 (Annexure-2) as well as the order dated 28-12-98 (Annexure-4). Annexures-1, 2 and 4 have been issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar and in terms of Article 1.66 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is in no doubt that the ratio of the aforesaid judgments -- and 1990 (2) BLJ 292 are wholly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. The writ petition ins, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000.00 (one thousand) only, which will be deducted from the petitioners salary at the earliest possible opportunity. If the petitioner does not carry out the aforesaid order dated 9- 10-98(Annexure-2), and refuses to join in his place of posting at Motihari forthwith, the respondent-authorities will be well advised to start departmental proceeding against the petitioner for refusal to carry out a valid order of transfer.