R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal, by the unsuccessful petitioner, is against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition no. 13886 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE Writ Petitioner (hereinafter referred as the appellant ), who is working as Manager, Design Analysis Group of corporate, R and D Division, Bharat Heavy electricals Limited (for short the company ), filed the above Writ Petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent in his Office Order No. 23/99 transferring him from Hyderabad to Bhopal and the consequential relief order issued by the 6th respondent on 2-7-1999. ( 3 ) THE main challenge of the appellant against the impugned transfer order is on the ground of mala fides. The learned single judge, by the order under appeal, declined to interfere with the same holding that the appellant could not conclusively prove mala fides. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant, sri M. V. Durga Prasad, addressed elaborate arguments, contending that: (a) the learned single Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the Writ Petition by holding that the allegations of mala fides are not conclusively proved; (b) the learned single Judge has overlooked the established legal position that proof of mala fides to the hilt is not required; (c) the material on record clearly lead to an inescapable inference of mala fides; and (d) even otherwise, the impugned transfer order is unsustainable and it is contrary to the transfer policy of the company. ( 5 ) SRI E. Manohar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, strongly disputed each one of the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the impugned transfer order was purely on administrative grounds and is, therefore, valid. ( 6 ) IN the light of the aforementioned contentions, the first question that arises for consideration is: what is the standard of proof that is required to prove allegations of mala fides in a Writ Petition? ( 7 ) THE age-old rule is that the standard of proof that is required to prove a fact in criminal and civil proceedings is not the same. While proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, is required in a criminal proceedings; in civil proceedings it is only preponderance of probabilities. Writ applications are civil proceedings. Therefore, the standard of proof that is required to prove mala fides in a Writ application is not proof to the hilt. While proof, beyond all reasonable doubt, is required in a criminal proceedings; in civil proceedings it is only preponderance of probabilities. Writ applications are civil proceedings. Therefore, the standard of proof that is required to prove mala fides in a Writ application is not proof to the hilt. But, at the same time, there must be a clear proof of the facts pleaded in support of the plea of mala fides. Further, the proved facts must be such that an inference of bad faith or mala fides is inescapable. This is the legal position that is reiterated by the Apex Court in several leading cases on the aspect. ( 8 ) IN the famous case of S. Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab, His Lordship Rajagopala ayyangar, ]. , speaking for the majority of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court held thus:-"para. 8. . . . . . . . . . . . If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from the proved facts". ( 9 ) IN M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar vs. State of Punjab a Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court held thus:"para 12. . . . . . . . . . . Court would be justified in refusing to carry out investigation into allegations of mala fides, if necessary particulars of charge making out a prima facie case are not given in the petition. The burden of establishing mala fides lies very heavily on the person who alleges it. The petitioners who seek to invalidate the impugned orders of suspension must establish the charge of bad faith or bias or misuse". (Emphasis supplied ). ( 10 ) IN the famous Express Newspaper s case i. e. , Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, a Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court held thus:-"para 119. . . . . . . . . . This does not mean that vague allegations of mala fide are enough to dislodge the burden resting on the person who makes the same though what is required in this connection is not a proof to the hilt, as held in Barium Chemicals Ltd. vs. Company Law Board - [ (1996) supplement SCR 311 = AIR 1967 SC 295 ] the abuse of authority must appear to be reasonably probable. " ( 11 ) IN Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, Justice Sabyasachi mukhariji, J. , (as he then was) speaking for a Bench of three learned Judges of the Apex court held thus:-"para 37. . . . . . . . . . . Therefore, while the court should be conscious of dealing with the allegations of mala fide or cast aspersions on holders of high office on power, the Court cannot ignore the probabilities arising from proven circumstances. " (emphasis supplied ). ( 12 ) IN the light of the aforesaid well established legal principle, the second question that arises of consideration is: are thethere proved facts, in this case, leading to an inescapable conclusion that the impugned order of transfer is tainted with mala fides? ( 13 ) BEFORE embarking upon a detailed examination of this aspect of the case, we consider it appropriate to state the case of the appellant, in brief, culling out from the very lengthy affidavit, running to 24 pages, filed by him. ( 14 ) THE appellant is working as a Design manager, Design Analysis Group of corporate, R and D Division of the Company at Hyderabad having joined the service in the year 1978 as an Engineer. Under the auspice of the management, the employees of the Company, belonging to R and D division, formed a Co-operative Society, which was registered under the A. P. Cooperative societies Act, 1964. The Society has undertaken three ventures since its formation in the year 1976. It provided house plots to nearly 400 members and it has yet to provide house plots for about 500 members. The Managing Committee of the Society, which was elected to office in the year 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the previous Managing Committee ), was headed by the 4th respondent-Sri m. R. C. Prasad. The Managing committee started a new venture, i. e. , venture No. IV, in the year 1991 by purchasing land admeasuring Ac. 25. 33 guntas in Jeedimetla village under an agreement of sale dated 30-1-1991 for a sum of Rs. 37. 00 lakhs. That agreement of sale was entered into with the land owner and also with the 5th respondent, who is claiming as an agreement holder. The previous Managing Committee mismanaged the affairs of the Society and was causing losses to the members. Even though they have collected more than rs. 1. 37. 00 lakhs. That agreement of sale was entered into with the land owner and also with the 5th respondent, who is claiming as an agreement holder. The previous Managing Committee mismanaged the affairs of the Society and was causing losses to the members. Even though they have collected more than rs. 1. 00 crore from the members, they could not obtain sale deed in favour of the society. On the Complaints made by several members, enquiry under Section 51 of the said Act was also conducted. But, due to the collusion between the Officers and the previous Managing Committee, things did not improve. Even the person-in-charge appointed by the Government could not take over all the records from the previous managing Committee. While the matter stood thus, elections were held to the society on 31-5-1995 and a new Managing committee headed by the appellant was elected, defeating all the members of the previous Managing Committee. Thereafter, the appellant was taking steps to safeguard the interest of the members of the Society. Consequently, litigation ensued between the members of the Society and the previous Managing Committee. Due to the efforts of the petitioner, the frauds committed by the previous Managing committee, headed by the 4th respondent, stood exposed. Annoyed by this and with a view to protect the members of the previous managing Committee, the 4th respondent, in collusion with respondents 2 and 3, obtained the orders from the 1st respondent transferring the appellant to Bhopal. ( 15 ) HAVING thus stated the appellant s case, we now propose to closely examine the allegations of mala fides made against the 4th, 2nd and 3rd respondents. ( 16 ) THE bulk of the allegations in the appellant s lengthy affidavit are directed against the 4th respondent, who was the president of the previous Managing committee. Briefly stated they are: the 4th respondent entered into an agreement with the 5th respondent herein and some others on 30-1-1991 for purchasing Ac. 25. 33 guntas of land for providing house sites to the members of the society. For the said purpose, the previous managing Committee collected an amount of Rs. 1. 06 crores from the members of the society, though the total consideration payable to the vendors of the said land was rs. 37. 00 lakhs. But, they failed to get the conveyance of title of the said land in favour of the Society. For the said purpose, the previous managing Committee collected an amount of Rs. 1. 06 crores from the members of the society, though the total consideration payable to the vendors of the said land was rs. 37. 00 lakhs. But, they failed to get the conveyance of title of the said land in favour of the Society. The members of the previous Managing Committee are involved in several financial irregularities. The appellant was elected as President of the Managing Committee of the Society in the year 1995 defeating the 4th respondent. The previous Managing Committee headed by the 4th respondent failed to hand over the records and accounts relating to the purchase of the said land etc. to the managing Committee of the appellant. On the representations made by the members of the Society, an enquiry was conducted into the affairs of the Society and it was found that the previous Managing committee committed several irregularities; neither the management of the Company nor the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies (Housing) took any action against the previous Managing Committee. Instead, the Deputy Registrar, in collusion with the previous Managing Committee, passed an order on 12-9-1997 proposing to hand over the said land to the previous Managing committee on their paying Rs. 28. 83 lakhs even though the market value of the said land was more than Rs. 12. 00 crores. Against the said proposal of the Deputy registrar, some of the members of the society filed Writ Petitions before this court. The Management of the Company, represented by the 2nd respondent and the previous Managing Committee insisted the present Managing Committee for withdrawal of the said Writ Petitions. As the appellant is actively pursuing the affairs of the Society by spending a crore of rupees for the development of the said land and exhumed the financial irregularities committed by the previous Managing committee, the 4th respondent, with the collusion of respondents 2 and 3, got the appellant transferred from Hyderabad to bhopal by the impugned orders with an ulterior motive of saving the members of the previous Managing Committee. ( 17 ) THE 4th respondent did not file any counter and remained ex parte. But, in our considered view, that will not in any way advance the appellant s case. ( 17 ) THE 4th respondent did not file any counter and remained ex parte. But, in our considered view, that will not in any way advance the appellant s case. ( 18 ) IT is important to note here that the competent authority to transfer the appellant is the Chairman and Managing director of the Company. Admittedly, the impugned order was issued with his approval by the Deputy General Manager (P) of the Company. It is interesting to note here that the appellant in his lengthy affidavit did not make any allegations of bias or prejudice against the Chairman and managing Director of the Company. All the while his case is that the previous managing Committee headed by the 4th respondent in collusion with respondents 2 and 3 obtained the impugned transfer order. There is not even a whisper, in those allegations,that how the 4th respondent poisoned the mind of the Chairman and managing Director of the Company against the appellant and got the impugned transfer order issued. Undisputedly, respondents 2 and 3, who are subordinates to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, are not in a position to influence the Chairman and Managing director. There is no such allegation even. It is, thus, clear that the appellant could not and did not either plead or prove any mala fides on the part of the Chairman and managing Director of the Company, on whose approval the impugned transfer was made. That being so, the allegations against the 4th respondent, even though remained uncontroverted, will not in any way lead to an irresistible inference that the impugned transfer order was issued by the Chairman and Managing Director, mala fidely, at the instance of the 4th respondent. ( 19 ) COMING to the allegations made against the 2nd respondent, we have to hold that the position is no better. ( 20 ) THE 2nd respondent, dr. A. Prabhakar Rao, is the General manager in-charge of the Company, R and D wing, Hyderabad. The allegation against him is that he and the 3rd respondent are directly involved in the affairs of the society. The 2nd respondent had secured a plot in Venture-III of Jayanagar, in violation of the Rules of the Society and he is apprehending that the present Managing committee, headed by the appellant, may resume the said plot. The allegation against him is that he and the 3rd respondent are directly involved in the affairs of the society. The 2nd respondent had secured a plot in Venture-III of Jayanagar, in violation of the Rules of the Society and he is apprehending that the present Managing committee, headed by the appellant, may resume the said plot. With a view to retain that plot some how or other he was acting in collusion with the previous Managing committee and even insisted for withdrawal of the Writ Petitions filed in this court by the members of the Society against the Management of the Company and the previous Managing Committee. Since they declined to withdraw the said case, he, in collusion with the 3rd and 4th respondents got the appellant transferred from hyderabad to Bhopal with an ulterior motive of removing the appellant from the management of the Society. ( 21 ) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit specifically denying each of the allegations levelled against him. In his counter he stated that in Venture-Ill of jayanagar, a plot was allotted to him in the year 1982; at that time he was not having any house in his name or in the name of his wife; therefore, the allegation that he has got a plot in Venture-Ill in violation of the rules or bye-laws of the Society, is incorrect. He further stated that he had purchased a piece of land on 2-6-1981 in Marredpally, where he could not construct the house, as the said land was an agricultural land. He also stated that under the bye-laws of the society there is no restriction for applying for a plot if a member of the Society has no house of his own. Later on, he has constructed a house on the land, which he had earlier purchased, because the said land was converted by the competent authority into a residential area during the year 1986-87. He specifically denied that he has any interest in the management of the affairs of the Society and the allegation that he has brought pressure on the appellant and the members of the Society to withdraw the writ Petitions filed by them against the previous Managing Committee. He specifically stated, that he has no hand in the transfer of the appellant to Bhopal. He specifically stated, that he has no hand in the transfer of the appellant to Bhopal. ( 22 ) EXCEPT making the aforesaid allegations against the 2nd respondent, the appellant could not and did not prove the same by placing any independent evidence. He could not even plead, let alone prove, that how the 2nd respondent has influenced the Chairman and Managing Director of the company against the petitioner. Therefore, in our considered view, the allegations against the 2nd respondent are of no consequence. ( 23 ) THE case against the 3rd respondent is in no way better. The allegation against him is that he always had an axe to grind against the appellant as he had suspected that the appellant was responsible for his unceremonious shifting from the Naval simulator Project by the then General manager-Dr. A. Gopala Krishnan for doubtful integrity. The appellant was then working under the said General Manager. With that suspicion in mind, the 3rd respondent, in collusion with the 2nd respondent and in furtherance of the deep rooted conspiracy involving the 4th respondent also, got the appellant transferred. Here also nothing is alleged as to how the 3rd respondent influenced the chairman and Managing Director of the company against the appellant. ( 24 ) THE 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit denying each one of the allegations levelled against him. ( 25 ) ON a close scrutiny of the allegations made against the 3rd respondent and the counter-affidavit filed by him, it would be clear that the appellant could not and did not connect the 3rd respondent with the issue of the impugned transfer order. ( 26 ) FROM the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there are no proved facts in this case leading to an inescapable inference that the impugned order of transfer is tainted with mala fides. ( 27 ) ELABORATING his fourth contention, i. e. , contention (d)referred to above, the appellant s Counsel submitted that the transfer Policy of the Company does not authorize general transfers. Transfers can be made only on two grounds: (1) at the request of the concerned employee; and (2) as a punitive measure. Since none of these two grounds exists in this case, the impugned transfer order is unsustainable. ( 28 ) WE do not see any merit in this submission. Transfers can be made only on two grounds: (1) at the request of the concerned employee; and (2) as a punitive measure. Since none of these two grounds exists in this case, the impugned transfer order is unsustainable. ( 28 ) WE do not see any merit in this submission. Clause (1) of the Transfer policy reads thus :-" (1) Policy:- every employee of the Company is liable for transfer from one department/section/job within the same Unit/division or from one Unit/ division of the Company to another or from the Company to any other government Department/public sector Undertaking as and when required by the Company at the discretion of the Management. . . . . . . . " ( 29 ) FROM the above it is clear that the company is empowered to order general transfers as per the exigencies of service and there is no fetter on that right. ( 30 ) THE Counsel for the appellant then contended that the appellant has knowledge and experience only in Design analysis of Boiler Project and has no experience in the manufacture of Loco motives Boilers etc. , and, therefore, his transfer to Bhopal is against the interests of the Company. ( 31 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it was categorically stated that the appellant is an expert in Stress Analysis and a person with such expertise is needed at Bhopal and, therefore, he was transferred there. The appellant s Counsel, however, submits that the appellant has no such experience in stress Management and, therefore, he cannot be transferred to Bhopal. ( 32 ) WE are not impressed by this submission. It is the prerogative of the company, as an employer, to decide how and where to utilize the services of its employees. In their wisdom the Company thought it fit to utilize the services of the appellant at Bhopal. We cannot sit in appeal on that decision. ( 33 ) NO other point is urged by the appellant s Counsel. ( 34 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we do not see any error, much less a substantial one, in the order under appeal. We accordingly confirm the order of the learned single Judge in dismissing the Writ petition. ( 35 ) THE Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed; but, in the circumstances, without costs.