JUDGMENT : Devi Prasad Singh, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, is present in person along with records. 3. Sri. R.K. Khanna appeared on behalf of the opposite party. 4. The Petitioner is working on the post of Mahila Karyakatri at Chandausi. Initially she was transferred from Narauli to Chandausi. The Petitioner joined at Chandausi on 12th July, 2004. Now, by the impugned order, the earlier order of transfer dated 12th July, 2004, has been cancelled reverting back the Petitioner to Narauli. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on political interference. 6. The Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, has appeared in person and has produced the record. The record shows that one Shri Gopal Singh Yadav who happens to be the Ex-Secretary of Samajwadi Party, had sent a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, to cancel the transfer order. Thereafter, another letter has been sent by the City President of Samajwadi Party, Sri. Vinod Kumar Chulbul for cancellation of transfer order. The letter written by Sri. Vinod Kumar Chulbul to the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, is on the record which has also been produced along with other records. 7. No doubt, the transfer is an incident of service and employees have got no right to claim a post at particular place. It has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in cases in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Anand Prakash Solanki, AIR 2003 SC 3849 ; Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 104 , that order of transfer can be interfered only in case, it has been passed on mala fide or in violation of certain rules or regulations. In the present case, while passing the impugned order of transfer, the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, has forwarded the copy of the transfer order to Sri Vinod Kumar Chulbul. City president of Samajwadi Party. The Chief Medical Officer who is present in the Court has failed to explain for what reasons and under which circumstances, he has forwarded the copy of the transfer order to the City President of Samajwadi Party. He failed to give any reasonable reply. City president of Samajwadi Party. The Chief Medical Officer who is present in the Court has failed to explain for what reasons and under which circumstances, he has forwarded the copy of the transfer order to the City President of Samajwadi Party. He failed to give any reasonable reply. However, he submits that because of the fear of dharna and gherao, he had passed the impugned order of transfer. In case, he was pressurised to do so for political consideration, at the face of record, the impugned order was passed on account of political intervention by the office bearer of Samajwadi Party. In case, an officer agrees to discharge duty in such a manner, then the entire system will collapse. If a person is officially not involved to participate in administrative works, he will have no right to call for a copy of the order of transfer passed by the authorities. In the present case, order of transfer has been passed in pursuance of the letter issued by the President of City Samajwadi Party. It is unfortunate that Chief Medical Officer has passed the impugned order on political intervention and communicated the impugned order of transfer to the President of the City Samajwadi Party for the reasons best known to him. It shows that the Chief Medical Officer lacks capacity to hold the post and he has no courage to face the political interference. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in a case in Survesh Chand Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2426 , has deprecated the orders of transfer which are being passed for political considerations. Relevant portion of Survesh Chand Gupta's case (supra) is reproduced as under : Transfer of a Government servant holding a transferable post is an incidence of service, a part of service conditions and is normally not interfered with by this Court in its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that the order is mala fide or that the service Rules prohibit such transfer order or that the authority, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order. It is also settled law that in absence of prima facie material to establish mala fide, judicial review of transfer would be unjustified. The transfer order issued on administrative exigencies or with a view to sub-serving any public interest is not open for judicial review. It is also settled law that in absence of prima facie material to establish mala fide, judicial review of transfer would be unjustified. The transfer order issued on administrative exigencies or with a view to sub-serving any public interest is not open for judicial review. The instant case is not covered under any of these exceptional circumstances in which the Court may in its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere with the transfer order dated 23.9.2000 (Annexure-13). But so far as the impugned order dated 26.9.2000 Annexure-14 is concerned we are of the view that it is liable to be quashed. By means of the said order, Respondent H.N. Singh, who was earlier transferred and posted as Chief Pharmacist, Police Hospital, Azamgarh has been transferred to work as Chief Pharmacist, in C.M.S.D. under Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh. The said order it would appear from the facts of the case has been politically manoeuvred by Respondent H.N. Singh. Such a posting obtained by political manouvring would not be in the interest of the fair administration. Accordingly, the petition succeeds in part. The interim order dated 26.9.2000 being Annexure-14 whereby the Respondent H.N. Singh has been transferred and posted as Chief Pharmacist in place of the Petitioner is quashed though the Court declines to quash the order dated 23.9.2000 Annexure-13 whereby the Petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground from Azamgarh to Ballia. Direction contained in the order dated 23.9.2000, Annexure-13 that charge be handed over to Respondent H.N. Singh is however, quashed. 9. In another case in Salek Chand Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1999) 4 AWC 3065 , this Court had deprecated the transfer orders which are being passed on political interference. Relevant portion of Salek Chand's case (supra) is reproduced as under : 8. One of the elementary principles of administrative law is that the authority which has to exercise the power, is obliged to apply its mind before such exercise. It cannot abdicate its obligation to so and act at the instance of another authority which is not authorised to exercise the power. In other words, it is the competent authority which has to apply its mind and make the order. It cannot abdicate its obligation to so and act at the instance of another authority which is not authorised to exercise the power. In other words, it is the competent authority which has to apply its mind and make the order. In Achytananda Behera v. State of Orissa 1985 (2) SLR 16 (Ori), a transfer order, which was made at the behest of Member of Parliament who was activated by unconfirmed complaints of some villages, was struck down by a Division Bench of Orissa High Court. Hon'ble R.C. Patnaik, J., pointed out a disturbing feature in the administrative system which needs to be extracted: With the inroad of politics into various strata of society, it is not seldom that allegations are politically motivated. Therefore, when allegations are levelled against an employee, it is desirable nay imperative, that the administrator should himself ascertain the truth and act on his own satisfaction that the circumstances warrant a transfer. Any citizen can plead before an administrator for redress of his personal grievances or the grievances of the public at large for pushing through the various schemes and projects, for social welfare programmes. Who can better serve as a spokesman than a legislator, an elected representative of the people? He is not only a law maker but a spokesman of people inside the Legislature and outside it. He can plead, canvass and claim for the people and in the public interest. But it should not be lost sight of that there exists clear distinction between pleading, canvassing and claiming on the one hand and interference on the other. The respective jurisdictions of the legislator and administrator are well defined. It is not permissible for one to cross the boundary and trespass into the jurisdiction of the other. Much of the bane of the present administration is due to the breach of rule, due to politicization of administration, interference of politicians in matters of transfer, investigation and arrest of offenders etc. The letter of Member of Parliament which was set out in the judgment aforesaid, left no doubt in the mind of the Bench that the 'administrator did not apply his mind at all' and 'acted on the prodding of the legislator who had in turn acted on the complaint of some villagers. The transfer will be vitiated if it is directed at the instance of vested interests. The transfer will be vitiated if it is directed at the instance of vested interests. In this connection, a reference may be made to the decision of S. Rama Reddy v. Government of A.P. 1993 (1) SLR 256 (AP); Prof. Shyam Prasad v. State of Bihar 1952 (2) PLJR 610 and Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1992) LLJ 422. A transfer order has been set aside on similar ground by a Division Bench of this Court in Umesh Chand Tiwari v. State of U.P. 1987 (2) AWC 1475 ; Pawan Kumar Srivastava Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and Others, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 414 and Bhanu Pratap Mishra v. Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Service, U.P. Lucknow 1998 (1) AWC 1067. In the last case, it was observed that the impugned order of transfer which was, in fact, in the interest of the complainant and not in public interest or due to administrative exigency is afflicted by the vice of colourable exercise of power. 9. In recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Upper Shikasha Nideshak (Uttarakhand), U.P. Lucknow, and Ors. (1998) 3 ESC 2239, the entire controversy was summed up, in the following words, in paragraph 4 of the report: 4. We have carefully considered the case of the parties and the contentions raised by learned Counsel appearing on their behalf. We are also conscious of the position that this Court is slow in interfering with orders of transfer passed by the departmental authorities. The position is to be accepted as well settled that an order of transfer made arbitrarily and mechanically solely on the dictates of a political person or superior authority is unsustainable. In a democratic set up recommendation by politicians cannot be avoided. In such it is to be seen whether the transfer order under challenge was passed by the competent officer, without due application of mind solely on the dictates of political person and/or on extraneous considerations. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative the order has to be quashed. If any authority is necessary in support of the view, we may notice a few decided cases of the Supreme Court and this Court like Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1997 SC 3067 ; Smt. Gyatri Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. If any authority is necessary in support of the view, we may notice a few decided cases of the Supreme Court and this Court like Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1997 SC 3067 ; Smt. Gyatri Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1991) 2 ESC 970 (All); Pratap Narain Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1995 (1) ESC 509 (All); Pawan Kumar Srivastava v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. 1995 (1) AWC 389; Pradeep Kumar Agarwal v. Director, Local Bodies, U.P. IV Lucknow and Ors. (1994) 1 UPLBEC 189 and Sheo Kumar Sharma v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Dehat and Ors. (1991) 1 UPLBEC 690. In the instant case, as said above, the order of transfer of the Petitioner was not passed on account of any administrative exigency or public interest. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner had already completed a year's stay at Hardwar. Except for the fact that the Member of Parliament of the constituency concerned and the General Secretary of the State unit belonging to the ruling party were emphatic and insistent in seeking inconvenient Petitioner out of the district as the latter had not succumbed to their pressure to extend favour to certain persons of criminal propensities, there was no valid reason to transfer the Petitioner out of the district within hardly a period of one year. As observed in Bhanu Pratap Singh's case (supra), a Government servant cannot be treated like chattels, who could be driven from one place to another without any valid reason for the mere asking of persons wielding political authority. Such are the cases where the Court would interfere to create a sense of protection under law and thereby securing the ends of justice. It is amazing to note that the departmental authorities have danced to the tune of the letters written by the local political masters, ignoring the well-settled norms governing the transfers. In a democratic set up officers high up in the hierarchy are expected to act and discharge their executive functions uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration strictly in accordance with rules and regulations. I am constrained to observe that in the instant case, the departmental authorities have been callous in succumbing to the pressure of the local Member of Parliament and the General Secretary of the State Bhartiya Janta Party, who incidentally also hails from district Hardwar. I am constrained to observe that in the instant case, the departmental authorities have been callous in succumbing to the pressure of the local Member of Parliament and the General Secretary of the State Bhartiya Janta Party, who incidentally also hails from district Hardwar. The transfer order of the Petitioner dated 27.5.1998 from Hardwar to Lucknow is vitiated for the reasons stated above. 10. In view of the above, at the face of the record the impugned order of transfer suffers from political interference by the City President of the Samajwadi Party. The impugned order of transfer is not sustainable under law. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 and State of Madhya Pradesh, and Another Vs. S.S. Kourav and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1056 and submits that this Court should not interfere with the transfer order. In the present case, the judgment of the Apex Court are not applicable as the face of the record and on the basis of the statement made by Chief Medical Officer present in the Court, the impugned order has been passed because of political interference hence suffers from malice and amounts to colourable exercise of powers. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1963, had considered the circumstances under which an order can be held to be mala fide and passed for oblique motive. Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Pratap Singh's case (supra) had proceeded to hold as under: 7. As we said earlier, the two grounds of ultra vires and mala fide are thus most often inextricably mixed. Treating it as a question of ultra vires the question is what is the nature of the power has been granted to achieve a definite objection which case, it would be conditional to the purpose for which it is vested. Taking the present case of the power vested in Government to pass the impugned order, it could not be doubted that it is vested in Government for accomplishing a defined public purpose viz., to ensure probity and purity in the public services by enable disciplinary penal action against the members of the service suspected to be guilty of misconduct. The nature of the power thus discloses its purpose. The nature of the power thus discloses its purpose. In that content the use of that power for achieving an alien purpose making the ministers, vengeance on the officer would be mala fide and a colourable exercise of that power and would therefore be struck down by the Court. In this connection we might cite a dictum of Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtoun 1904 AC 315, when the learned Lord said at p. 695: I take it to be clear that there is condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the power shall be used bona fide for the purposes for which they are conferred. 8. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any cat or order must establish the charge of can faith, an abuse or a misuse by Government of its powers. While the indirect motive or purpose or bad faith or personal ill-will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that it is what the Appellants has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done (See Edigngton v. Fitzmaurice (1984) 29 Ch D 459. The difficulty is not lessened when one has to establish that a person in the position of a minister apparently acting in the legitimate exercise aim of power has, in fact, been acting mala fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim, we must, however, demur to the suggestion that mala fide, in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence that is that it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the notings in the file which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. 9. The only question which could be considered by the Court is whether the authority vested with the power has paid attention to or taken into account circumstances, events or matters wholly extraneous to the purpose for which the power was vested, or whether the proceedings have been initiated mala fide for satisfying a private or personal grudge of the authority against the officer. If the act is in excess of the power granted or is an abuse or misuse of power, the matter is capable of interference and rectification by the Court. In such an event the fact that the authority concerned denies the charge of mala fide or asserts the absence of oblique motives or of the having taken into consideration improper or irrelevant matter does not preclude the Court from enquiring into the truth of the allegations made against the authority and affording, appropriate reliefs to the party aggrieved by such illegality or abuse of power in the event of the allegations being made out. 13. In the present case, Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, himself while making statement asserted that he has passed the impugned order under the pressure exerted by the City President of Samajwadi Party and its ex-office bearer. The Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, had proceeded to make statement that he had passed the impugned order under fear, threats and gherao and treatment by those people of the political party. 14. In our democratic system, the three functionaries, i.e., Legislature, Judiciary and Executive have got their independent working fields. No one has got right to interfere with the functions of each one except in accordance to rules of business and procedure prescribed by law. Persons holding the office in three fields have got right to serve the public independently without being influenced by out siders who does not fall within the hierarchy of the system. Thus in a democratic system, everyone has got right to ventilate his grievance but it should be done in proper way and in accordance to established democratic principles and norms. 15. The members or office bearers of a political party does not have right to pressurize the authorities for transfer and posting of the employees. In case, they are permitted to do so, then whole system collapse and there will be anarchy in the society. Everyone will approach with a motive for transfer or posting or appointments of their kith and kin or their friends or relatives for some extraneous reasons the entire system and hampering the development of the country vide (sic) back. 16. In view of the above, the decision taken by the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, to transfer the Petitioner on pressure of office bearers of a political party is deprecated. 16. In view of the above, the decision taken by the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, to transfer the Petitioner on pressure of office bearers of a political party is deprecated. At the face of the record, the impugned order has been passed on account of political interference in the administration, hence not tenable. The writ petition deserves to be allowed with costs. 17. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 19th July, 2004, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition with all consequential benefits to the extent it relates to the Petitioner and the Petitioner shall be entitled to continue at the present place of his posting with all benefits. The Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, shall be liable to pay cost from his own salary which quantifies to Rs. 5,000. The cost shall be deposited in this Court within six weeks. Out of Rs. 5,000 the Petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw Rs. 2,500 and the remaining amount shall be credited in Legal Aid Cell of the Allahabad High Court. In case, the cost is not deposited, then the Director General of Medical and Health, U.P., Lucknow, shall send the same to the High Court at Allahabad after the expiry of the period of six weeks. The Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, shall ensure the compliance of this order. 18. Since, it appears that the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad, has acted under certain compulsions, the observation in the present judgment will not affect the service career of the Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad. But, he should remain cautious in future service career and not repeat the same wrong again. 19. The writ petition is allowed with cost accordingly. 20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General, Medical and Health Service, Lucknow, within two weeks from today.