JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. This petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 15-2-2002 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner is transferred from Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur to Ordnance Factory, Trichnapalli. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29-5-2002, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Original Application No. 199/2002 (Annexure P/2). Briefly, it may be mentioned that the petitioner was working on the post of Chargeman Grade-I in Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 - The General Manager of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur was annoyed with him because he had been associated with Trade Union activities during his entire service career and he formed a forum, namely, 'Jan Tantrik Mazdoor Morcha'. Because of his Trade Union activities respondents adopted unfair trade practice and transferred him in their colourable exercise of power with a view to victimize him. He also alleges that 200 trees were being cut by the respondents and the Morcha of which the petitioner is a leader, was agitating against the same. A news item was published in the newspaper highlighting the cutting of trees. Due to this publication, the petitioner incurred displeasure of the management. On 3-11-2001, the petitioner was called by the respondent No. 3. He was pressed to issue a press statement on behalf of the Morcha to the effect that the news of cutting of 200 trees was incorrect. As the petitioner did not fulfil this desire of respondent No. 3, he has been victimized. The reason for transfer being administrative is only an ostensible reason. The transfer was solely made for the purpose of thwarting Trade Union activities, and cannot be considered on account of administrative exigency. Order of transfer is punitive in nature. The petitioner filed Original Application No. 199/02 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of his transfer. The Central Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was considered for transfer for administrative reason. The administration decided that the activities of the petitioner and his presence in the Gun Carriage Factory was not conducive to the proper administration. The Tribunal has also concluded that the transfer of the petitioner is not mala fide exercise of power. It was not in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer and the Tribunal cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine. The Tribunal has also concluded that the transfer of the petitioner is not mala fide exercise of power. It was not in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer and the Tribunal cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine. The learned member of the Central Administrative Tribunal did not find any justification to interfere with the order of transfer and dismissed the original application. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The respondents contended that the petitioner holds a transferable post. The impugned order of transfer has been issued by the respondent No. 2. There is no allegation of any mala fide against respondent No. 2. The 'Jantantrik Mazdoor Morcha' was behind the publication of false news item and activities pre-judicial to the interest of organisation. It is alleged that the news item (Annexure A-4) states about the cutting of 200 trees but factually, only four trees were cut for the purpose of security of the installation. The conduct of the petitioner by giving news material criticising the Government was violative of conduct rules. It is submitted by the respondents that alleged annoyance by respondent No. 3 is a figment of his own imagination. It has been urged by the respondents that the transfer of the petitioner is not a punishment order but is an administrative order for improving efficiency and working atmosphere of the organisation. The transfer was not due to any ill-will or malice or extraneous consideration or vindictiveness. It is well settled position that administration can transfer the employee from one place to another and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by the Court of Law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit the transfer or the authority issuing the order did not have the competence to issue such an order. On the perusal of the material on record we find that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the transfer was unusual. No suspicious circumstances is made out to draw an inference that the transfer is mala fide and it was occasioned on account of trade union activities of the petitioner. A Government employee or any servant of a public undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place. No suspicious circumstances is made out to draw an inference that the transfer is mala fide and it was occasioned on account of trade union activities of the petitioner. A Government employee or any servant of a public undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place. Unless specifically provided in his service conditions he has no choice in the matter of posting. The petitioner has served for long at Jabalpur, his transfer to some other place is proper, more so when his transfer was made on administrative grounds. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. D.N. Prasad , it has been held that presumption is in favour of the bona fide of the orders unless contradicted by acceptable material. Mala fide requires strong and convincing reasons. The Central Administrative Tribunal has recorded a positive finding in its order. We do not find any reason to take a contrary view. The petitioner made public statement against the head of the organisation and made allegations against the officers which is clearly detrimental to the proper functioning of the organisation and its internal discipline which amounts to lowering the prestige of the organisation, in which the petitioner is working. In this background it was a fit case where the employer could transfer its employee and the order of transfer cannot be result of mala fides. From the material on record it is also clear that the petitioner was imposed some penalty or the other on 31 occasions. The petitioner alleges that 21 punishments have already been quashed by the High Court but about other punishments the petitioner could not give any explanation. Thus it appears that the transfer order has been made in public interest and for administrative reasons. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. Transfer is an incident of a service. The transfer order issued by the competent authority has not violated any of the legal rights of the petitioner. Even if transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, court ordinarily would not interfere with the order. The Tribunal has rightly held that if the courts interfere with the day to day transfer orders issued by the Govt. and subordinate authorities there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to the public interest. The Tribunal has rightly held that if the courts interfere with the day to day transfer orders issued by the Govt. and subordinate authorities there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to the public interest. The petitioner continued to be posted at Jabalpur for the last several years and he has no vested right to remain posted at one place. There is no foundation for the contention that the transfer order was not issued on administrative exigency but only to humiliate the petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to lay any firm foundation warranting a finding with the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide and/or for an oblique reasons in order to punish the petitioner. Pleadings of the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal only indicate that because of his trade union activities, he was transferred. Petitioner was involved in trade union activities from the very beginning. Such facts alone do not lay any foundation for finding that the transfer was not due to the administrative exigency. This Court or the Tribunal are not appellate forum to decide whether the transfer of the officer was on administrative grounds. Whole of the administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Court or the Tribunal are not expected to interdict the working of the administration system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decision shall stand. The Court cannot go into the expediency of transfer of an employee unless there are strong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper or unjustifiable. It is true that the order of transfer may cause a loss to the employee and dislocation to the family set up of the concerned employee but on that score, the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. The Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the petition on valid grounds. It appears that the petitioner is a self styled leader. It does not appear that there is any annoyance or displeasure by any officers on the grounds the petitioner claimed. It appears that petitioner is deliberately trying to make out a case of colourable exercise of power by the competent authority which is not the case. It appears that the petitioner is a self styled leader. It does not appear that there is any annoyance or displeasure by any officers on the grounds the petitioner claimed. It appears that petitioner is deliberately trying to make out a case of colourable exercise of power by the competent authority which is not the case. Simply because some-total performance of the petitioner along with his amenability to discipline were kept in view while transferring him on administrative grounds, he cannot say that the transfer order was made in colourable exercise of the power and to victimise him. For the foregoing reasons, we decline to interfere with the order of transfer, the petition is liable to and is hereby dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed