S. R. SINGH, D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) THE connected together are these four writ petitions filed by one and the same writ petitioners. The grounds on which the reliefs have been claimed are more or less common in all the petitions and, therefore, the writ petitions can be disposed of conveniently by a composite judgment and order to which the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties have nodded in approval and hence we proceed to decide all the writ petitions by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE facts of each case may be itemised briefly for better appreciation of the controversy involved in these cases. ( 3 ) IN writ petition No. 1910 of 1999 under challenge is the order dated 8. 1. 99 (Annexure 14) by means of which the petitioner was transferred from Jhansi to Lucknow at the Headquarter. The case of the petitioner is that by order dated 6. 3. 98, the petitioner was transferred from head-quarter Lucknow to Jhansi and was given officiating charge of Superintending Engineer with effect from 15. 4. 98; the Minister, Department of Rural Engineering and Minor Irrigation while touring districts under the jurisdiction of the petitioner between 12. 12. 98 and 15. 12. 98, inspected the godown, sites and offices etc. of the Minor Irrigation Department the charge of which had passed on to the petitioner on 15. 4. 98 at the instance of the Minister himself; that the directions and orders contained in the Inspection Notes prepared on the spot were fully complied to the letter and spirit to the satisfaction of the Minister; that by means of an order, the petitioner was required to furnish certain information by presenting himself in person before the Minister at lucknow which he complied with; that the petitioner, as averred in para 29 of the writ petition, was asked to submit proposal for his (petitioner) attachment to the Head quarter and for posting of some officer equipped with experience in his place; that by FAX message dated 24. 12. 98 (Annexure 12), the District Magistrate of the district was informed that the Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineer had been replaced and they be asked to make overcharges of their respective offices to the new incumbents though order of transfer was passed on 8. 1. 12. 98 (Annexure 12), the District Magistrate of the district was informed that the Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineer had been replaced and they be asked to make overcharges of their respective offices to the new incumbents though order of transfer was passed on 8. 1. 99; that the petitioner has been penalised for no fault of his own but for the personal and political malevolence; that the Minister has passed orders impugned herein for reason born of malafides and, therefore, the impugned orders are apt to the quashed. While entertaining the writ petitions, this Court passed the interim order dated 3. 2. 99 directing the parties to maintain status quo till 24. 2. 99 in so far as transfer order dated 8. 1. 99 was concerned. The interim order was extended from time to time. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit to which the petitioner has filed his reply. ( 4 ) IN writ petition No. 17830 of 1999, the relief sought for is that the respondents be commanded to regularise the promotion of the petitioner as Superintendent Engineer in accordance with law against the substantive post earmarked for SC/st in the light of the decision of Apex Court in 1997 (5) SCC 201 and to command the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to function as Officiating Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Jhansi Circle, jhansi. The petitioner asserts that no Departmental Promotion Committee has met since 1995 and, therefore, the petitioner being the senior-most in reserve category, was made officiating superintending Engineer by order dated 19. 5. 1997 and since then, he is discharging functions of superintending Engineer alongwith the functions of Executive Engineer; that his regular promotion has become due long back but the same is being denied arbitrarily, illegally and for extraneous considerations. By the interim order dated 6. 10. 99, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as Officiating Superintending Engineer till further orders. ( 5 ) THE writ petition No. 24759 of 1999 came to be filed challenging the validity of the order dated 4. 6. 99 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. The impugned order in this case was stayed by this Court by means of the interim order dated 15. 6. 1999. ( 5 ) THE writ petition No. 24759 of 1999 came to be filed challenging the validity of the order dated 4. 6. 99 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. The impugned order in this case was stayed by this Court by means of the interim order dated 15. 6. 1999. The charges 1, 2 and 3 as set out in the impugned order dated June 4, 1999, briefly stated, are that while working as Executive Engineer from 1. 4. 98 to 31. 12. 98, he failed to discharge his duties inasmuch as he leagued with his subordinates and got the drilling work done without extensive examination of the D. T. H. Rig Machine the rate of which detracted from the fixed standard by 55% thereby entailing higher diesel consumption of 35 litres per hour as against fixed 30 litres per hour; incurring of expenditure beyond the sanctioned fund and in doing so, he was motivated by his own vested interest; dereliction of duty and disregards of the orders in purchasing 2000 bags of cement and in not initiating any action against the firm in not supplying 200 bags of cement upto 29. 1. 99; purchase of 500 meters of M. S. pipe while the pipes were not at all required by the department nor any fund had been allocated for the purpose and that the payment was made from under the head not allocated for the purposes by misrepresenting the facts and thereby occasioned loss to the exchequer to the tune of Rs. 15 lac, and financial irregularities and abuse of public money in not following provisions of the Financial Hand Book and the relevant general Accounting guidelines and in advancing Misc. Expenses to the few chosen junior engineers to the tune of Rs. 2,32,733. 15 without scanning its let nationality. ( 6 ) SO far as a writ petition No. 1910 of 1999 is concerned, we circumscribe ourselves to the observation that transfer being an incidence of service is normally not interferred with by this court under Article 226 except on ground of malafides or violation of some statutory rules or where it is against public interest. Though the allegations against the Minister of the Concerned department, smack of malafides of serious nature, we are hardly inclined to interfered with the impugned order of transfer dated 8. 1. Though the allegations against the Minister of the Concerned department, smack of malafides of serious nature, we are hardly inclined to interfered with the impugned order of transfer dated 8. 1. 99 for the reason that the petitioner is enmeshed in disciplinary enquiry which is the subject-matter of challenge in the connected writ petition No. 24759 of 1999 and at this stage on the basis of the affidavits on record, it is not possible to come to any definite conclusion one way or the other about the truth or otherwise of the allegations of malafides made against the concerned Minister. This petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) COMING to writ petition No. 17839 of 1999, suffice it to say that pending disciplinary proceeding, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondents at this stage to regularise the petitioner on the post of Superintending Engineer as against the quota reserved for SC/st. This petition too is, therefore, liable to be dismissed subject to the observations that it would be open to the petitioner to stake his claim for being regularised as Superintending Engineer in accordance with law depending upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. ( 8 ) WRIT Petition No. 24759 of 1999 is directed against the suspension order dated 4. 6. 99 and writ petition No. 28512 of 1999 has been filed canvassing the validity of the order dated 9. 7. 99 whereby the petitioner has been robbed of his Drawing and Disbursing power. The charges referred to in the suspension order dated 4. 6. 99 albeit call for being enquired into but upon regard being had to the fact situation of the case and the provisions contained in proviso to Rule 4 (1) of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, we feel called to observe that recourse to suspension was not justified particularly in the face of serious allegations of malqfide made against the Minister concerned against whom we are inclined to direct the C. B. I. , New Delhi to make a thorough enquiry into the allegations of corruption and abuse of power/public office. As a matter of fact serious allegations of malafides have been made against the concerned Minister party respondent No. 2 herein not only by the petitioner but by several other officers of the department in Civil Misc. As a matter of fact serious allegations of malafides have been made against the concerned Minister party respondent No. 2 herein not only by the petitioner but by several other officers of the department in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30717 of 1999, 30719 of 1999, 31724 of 1998, 31732 of 1998, 6936 of 1993, 12670 of 1999, 8748 of 1993, 21127 of 1997, 18522 of 1998, 18524 of 1998, 1625 of 1995, 1627 of 1995, 1628 of 1995, 10004 of 1995, 16727 of 1995, 4360 of 1998, 5121 of 1995, 1626 of 1995, 33283 of 1998, 928 of 1999, 934 of 1999, 1209 of 1999, 2344 of 1999, 4917 of 1999, 5801 of 1999, 7467 of 1999, 9010 of 1999, 12956 of 1999, 14647 of 1999 and 17830 of 1999. Specific allegations have been made in the writ petition No. 24759 of 1999 that "in order to extract money, the officers of Minor irrigation Department as well as Rural Engineering Service are being victimised by way of frequent transfer/suspension/institution of enquiry. " It is also alleged that the petitioner is being harassed owing to the reason that he was not amenable to the illegal demands made by the minister concerned. During the course of arguments, Sri T. P. Singh, Senior Advocate invited the attention of the Court to the July, 2000 ISSUE OF RASHTRIYA HINDI SAMACHAR patrika embodying life history with the photograph of the concerned Minister under the caption "khaddar Main Lipta Rajnetik Aparadhi". We however, forbear from excoriating the minister on the basis of what has been said in the said News Magazine at this stage : ( 9 ) THE office of Minister, it needs hardly be said, is a public officer of fiduciary nature, and cannot be exploited for personal gains and aggrandisement. This Court, however, falls short of being equipped with necessary wherewithal to have determined the truth or otherwise of the serious allegations made against the concerned Minister party respondent No. 2. The Apex Court in its order dated 3. 4. 2000 has minced no words in observing that "if the allegations in the writ petition are correct, the rights of the respondents must be vindicated and the party at whose instance such orders have been issued in bad faith, his continuance in the office is not in public interest. The Apex Court in its order dated 3. 4. 2000 has minced no words in observing that "if the allegations in the writ petition are correct, the rights of the respondents must be vindicated and the party at whose instance such orders have been issued in bad faith, his continuance in the office is not in public interest. A minister being holder of a public office is accountable to the Legislative Assembly and thereby to the pubic besides being answerable and accountable in criminal proceedings if the allegations made against him are brought home on proper enquiry. And if the doctrine of collective responsibility envisaged in our Constitution is anything to go by, the whole ministry may be forced to resign. It would be apt to observe that though the Governor under the constitution is bound by the advice given by the Council of Ministers, he owes a duty to the people to keep a watch on his Ministers and in case, he is satisfied that a Minister in Council of ministers is involved "in some sort of unconstitutional or subversive activities" he must at least warn such Minister. If the allegations made in these and various other writ petitions are found to have any ring of truth, no sane person can claim that the affairs of the State are being run in accord with the constitution. Since high public functionary is involved in the case and given the slew of serious allegations of corruption and abuse of public office against him swirling around, sifting of the wheat from the chaff is rendered imperative and in the circumstances, it would be apt and proper to direct upon regard being had to the width and dimension of the charges of corruption and abuse of office and their ramifications, an enquiry to be conducted by the Central bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, upon the conclusions of which appropriate action shall be taken depending upon the outcome of the enquiry. At the same time, we are of the view that the disciplinary proceeding may be taken to its logical conclusion without keeping the petitioner under suspension and without depriving him of his Drawing and Disbursing powers. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY while writ petition Nos. At the same time, we are of the view that the disciplinary proceeding may be taken to its logical conclusion without keeping the petitioner under suspension and without depriving him of his Drawing and Disbursing powers. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY while writ petition Nos. 1910 of 1999 and 17830 of 1999 are dismissed, subject to the observations made in the judgment, writ petition No. 24759 of 1999 and 28512 of 1999 are disposed of attended with the directions firstly, that the orders impugned therein shall remain in abeyance without prejudice to the enquiry which may be conducted and taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law by an Enquiry Officer not in the administrative control of the minister concerned and secondly, that the enquiry to be conducted by such officer to be appointed by the Chief Secretary shall not be routed through the concerned Minister but the same shall be routed through the Chief Minister. We also direct that the copy of the writ petition alongwith a certified copy of this order be despatched to the Director, Central Bureau of investigation at Delhi who shall hold or get the enquiry held into the imputations made against the respondent No. 2 as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( 11 ) THE case shall be listed in the week commencing 24th July, 2001 for further orders/directions. .