Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner had filed this writ application originally against annexure-1 dated 27.9.2000 by which on administrative grounds he was transferred from Anchal Office, Dehri to district Revenue Section, Rohtas at Sasaram by order of the District Magistrate, Rohtas. Subsequently he has been served with an order of suspension signed by the District Magistrate on 21.10.2000 contained in memo no. 1178 dated 23.2.2000 which has been annexed as annexure-18 and petitioner has prayed for quashing of the same also. 3. With regard to the order of transfer it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the same has been passed by the District Magistrate upon incorrect allegations made against the petitioner by the Anchal Adhikan, Dehri. According to the petitioner earlier also the Anchal Adhikari had made such allegations which on inquiry were found incorrect by the S.D.O., Dehri as appears from his order dated 21.8.2000 contained in annexure-14. According to the petitioner even subsequent inquiry into allegations levelled against him have been found incorrect by the D.C.L.R. Dehri as would appear from his order dated 10.11.2000 contained in annexure-19. On such materials It has been submitted that in fact there was no administrative ground for transfer of the petitioner from Dehri to Rohtas but the same was occasioned due to incorrect report made against the petitioner by the Anchal Adhikari, Dehri. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension on the ground that the same was passed in haste when petitioner was taking steps for filing of this writ application against his transfer. It has further been submitted that petitioner was relieved from the post at Dehri on 16.10.2000 by annexure-17 and thereafter according to provisions of Bihar Service Code he should have been granted six days time to join his post at Sasaram and thereafter only an occasion could arise for suspension of petitioner for the alleged disobedience of the order of transfer. 5. A perusal of the order of suspension contained in annexure-18 shows that the District Magistrate, Rohtas signed the said order on 21.10.2000 i.e. before the. expiry of six days from 16.10.2000. 6. 5. A perusal of the order of suspension contained in annexure-18 shows that the District Magistrate, Rohtas signed the said order on 21.10.2000 i.e. before the. expiry of six days from 16.10.2000. 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the subsequent report of the D.C.L.R., Dehri dated 10.11.2000 by which the allegations against the petitioner have been found to be incorrect, it appears that the impugned order of transfer shown to have been passed for administrative reasons has been passed actually on incorrect allegations against the petitioner. Accordingly the impugned order of transfer contained in annexure-1 is hereby quashed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner against the order of suspension also appear to carry weight and in the facts and circumstances the impugned order of suspension contained in annexure-18 is also quashed. It goes without saying that if upon fresh material the District Magistrate comes to a view that administrative exigency requires the petitioner to be transferred to Sasaram or any other place he may consider the same and pass fresh order in accordance with law.