Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Waris, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sohail, learned G.P.I. for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Land Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 6. 2. The sole petitioner by this writ petition prays for an appropriate writ or order or direction for quashing the office order contained in memo No. 840, dated 17-7-98 (Annexure-8), whereby the petitioners transfer from Lohardaga to Gumla has been cancelled, and respondent No. 6 has been brought back to Gumla in complete derogation of the earlier order of transfer contained in memo No. 643, dated 27-12-95 (Annexure-1). According to the petitioner, he was posted at Lohardaga and respondent No. 6 was posted at Gumla, By the said order dated 27-12-95 (Annexure-1), the petitioner and respondent No. 6 had swapped their places. In compliance of the order dated 27-12-95 (Annexure-1), the petitioner had promptly handed over his charge at Lohardaga, and reported in the concerned office at Gumla to take charge. Respondent No. 6 proved to be recalcitrant and refused to hand over the charge to the petitioner at Gumla and did not on his pat carry out the order marked Annexure-1. Feeling constrained by the circumstances created by respondent No. 6, the Executive Engineer at Gumla had addressed his letter to the Assistant Engineer, Gumla II, by his letter contained in memo No, 58, dated 12-2-96 (Annexure-3), that respondent No. 6 should hand over his charge to the petitioner latest, by 12-12-96, failing which respondent No. 6 shall be deemed to have been deprived of his charge on 15-2-96. Annexure-3 does not seem to have been carried out, possibly on account of the recalcitrant behaviour of respondent No. 6. On the heels of it came the order contained in memo No. 964, dated 19-12-96 (Annexure-4), of the Sub-divisional Officer, Gumla, stating that refusal on the part of respondent No. 6 to hand over his charge to the petitioner was creating an adverse effect on the general morale of the administration and, therefore, a request had been made by the appropriate authorities that charge should be taken from respondent No. 6 by deputing a Magistrate. The order dated 19-12-96 (Annexure-4), was the step in that direction on the part of the Sub-divisional Officer, Gumla. The order dated 19-12-96 (Annexure-4), was the step in that direction on the part of the Sub-divisional Officer, Gumla. Accordingly, charge was taken from respondent No. 6 On 29-1-97, and the petitioner continued to function at Gumla till the impugned order dated 17-7-98 (Annexure-5), was passed. As stated above, the aforesaid order of transfer dated 27-12-95 (Annexure-1) has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 17-7-98 (Annexure-5) and the petitioner and respondent No. 6 have re- swapped their places. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that his Interlocutory Application for stay of the impugned order (Annexure-5) was placed before this Court on 14-10-98 and status quo was directed to be maintained. 4. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of transfer (Annexure-5), is bad in law because there is not the slightest trace of evidence or record that it was in the exigency of service, on the contrary, it is giving a premium on indiscipline and machinations. He further submitted that respondent No. 6 had created such problems for the respondent-authorities in implementation of Annexure-1 and yet have succumbed. Without any valid, perceptible reason, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 have been directed to re-swap their places after the petitioner has worked on his new place of posting at Gumla for one and half years. He lastly submitted that the impugned order of transfer is bad in law, as it is meant to accommodate a particular parson. 5. Mr. Sohil, G.P.I. submitted that the impugned order (Annexure-5), is not in violative of any statutory rule or administrative circular. It is not without jurisdiction, nor is actuated by malafides. He lastly submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous because the impugned order (Annexure-5), had already been implemented before the order of status quo was passed by this Court on 14-10-98. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 submitted that the impugned order (Annexure-5), has already been implemented, and in fact he had already joined at Gumla on 14-10-98 prior to the interim order dated 14-10-98 of this Court. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is clearly of the view that the respondent-authorities by such administrative action as is evidenced by the facts and circumstances of the present case have reduced themselves to dust. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is clearly of the view that the respondent-authorities by such administrative action as is evidenced by the facts and circumstances of the present case have reduced themselves to dust. This Court is really aghast at the frivolous action of the respondent-authorities. It speaks of complete administrative chaos in the administrative circles of the Bihar Government, the impugned order is tantamount to putting a premium on the indiscipline recalcitrant behaviour of the employees like respondent No. 6. Before passing the impugned order (Annexure-5), the respondent-authorities should have reminded themselves of the scene of indiscipline created by respondent No. 6 at Gumla, and the orders dated 12-12-96 (Annexure-3) and dated 19-12-96 (Annexure-4), speak for themselves. Charge could be taken from respondent No. 6 at Gumla with the help of a Magistrate. 8. Secondly, the impugned order is surely not in the interest of administrative exigency. Not the slightest evidence was produced by respondent-authorities in this connection and, in fact, no such argument was advanced by the respondents. The petitioner has functioned at Gumla from 29-1-97 to 14-10-98, if not beyond that, and there is not the slightest justification on record for the impugned order, excepting the machinations of respondent No. 6 clearly discernible on the face of it. 9. This Court is equally convinced, and in fact follows as a matter of natural corollary from the findings recorded hereinabove, that the impugned order (Annexure-5) is surely and entirely meant to accommodate respondent No. 6. Such an order of transfer can never be sustained, vide judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Puspika Chatterjee V/s. State of West Bengal, 1972 S.L.R. 910. 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order contained in memo No. 840, dated 17-7-98 (Annexure-5), is hereby quashed. The previous order contained in memo No. 643, dated 27-12-95 (Annexure-1), is hereby restored. The petitioner will be deemed to have continued at Gumla on 17-7-98 and ever thereafter till a fresh order of transfer is passed by respondent-authorities in accordance with law. It will be open to the respondent-authorities to pass a fresh order in relation to respondent No. 6, but without any detriment to the petitioner. (II) The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Respondent No. 1 shall pay costs amounting to Rs. 2.000.00 to the petitioner. It will be open to the respondent-authorities to pass a fresh order in relation to respondent No. 6, but without any detriment to the petitioner. (II) The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Respondent No. 1 shall pay costs amounting to Rs. 2.000.00 to the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 shall also pay costs quantified at Rs. 2,000.00 which shall be deducted from his salary and paid to the petitioner.