JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N.C. Phukan and Ms. M. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned senior C.G.S.C, appearing for the official respondents. 2. The correctness and validity of the transfer order dated 12.11.2004, so far the petitioner is concerned, has been questioned in this writ petition. The order of transfer has been assailed basically on one ground stating that there was a clear violation of provision of law particularly Rule 14 of the Border Security Force (Tenure and Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules",) 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel in course of his argument, in addition to the above ground so projected in the writ petition has also advanced one more ground contending that the impugned order has been passed mala fide and accordingly the same has been imposed upon the petitioner as a punitive measure. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner who joined only on 1.10.2004 at Shillong, has been transferred out by the impugned order without completion of three years tenure on the place of posting as prescribed under rule 4 of Rules. As such the impugned order is purely contrary to rule 4 as well as Rule 14 of Rules and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 4. Arguing on the point of mala fide, Mr. Choudhury, the senior counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India. Referring to the averments made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official respondents which have also been countered by the petitioner by filing response against the statements made in Misc. Case No. 3569/04, he has forcefully contended that the contentions made therein clearly reflect the mala fide on the part of the respondents because admittedly this transfer has been occasioned by way of punitive action on the basis of certain complaints received against him as regards the mismanagement and unsatisfactory performance by him. Hence, as mala fide was writ large in taking the decision to transfer the petitioner, the impugned order has no leg to stand. In order to bolster up his submissions, Mr. Choudhury has relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, namely, (1) Union of India and Ors. Hence, as mala fide was writ large in taking the decision to transfer the petitioner, the impugned order has no leg to stand. In order to bolster up his submissions, Mr. Choudhury has relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, namely, (1) Union of India and Ors. v. Janardhan Debnath and Anr. reported in (2004) II LLJ 1057 SC ; (2) N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1995) I LLJ 854 SC ; (3) Mozibur Rahman v. State of Assam reported in 2004 (2) GLT 421 ; (4) Balendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in (2004) 2 GLR 355 and (5) Paresh Choudhury v. State of Assam and Ors. reported 2004 (3) GLT 295. 5. Relying on paragraph 23 of N.K. Singh's case (supra), it is, contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order itself is based on mala fide which is apparent on the face of the contentions made in the official respondents' affidavit and hence the same deserves interference of this Court. The relevant portion of paragraph 23 is extracted as under: 23... The tendency of anyone to consider himself undispensable is undemocratic and unhealthy. Assessment of worth must be left to the bone fide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personal management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to limited judicial scrutiny indicated. 6. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to limited judicial scrutiny indicated. 6. In Janardhan Debnath's case (supra), the Apex Court categorically ruled that allegation of misbehaviour or unbecoming conduct of an employee can only be gone into a departmental proceeding which is not at all necessary in effecting a transfer and in case of transfer, only thing what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the Authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of. The Supreme Court in paragraph 14 spoke as follows: 14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question, which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purpose of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest of exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration.... The proposition of law laid down in Janardhan Debnath's case (supra) has been fully relied on by this Court in Paresh Choudhury's case (supra). 7. In Mozibur Rahman's case (supra) also this Court while explaining the distinction between "punitive transfer" and the order of transfer by "itself being punitive", held in paragraphs 9 to 11 as follows: 9. Unsatisfactory performance on the part of the petitioner in the 2nd petition was the basis for his transfer to another school. The formation of opinion in this regard was the motive behind, which cannot be said to he the foundation. Unsatisfactory performance on the part of the petitioner in the 2nd petition was the basis for his transfer to another school. The formation of opinion in this regard was the motive behind, which cannot be said to he the foundation. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of N.K. Singh (supra) several factors including suitability of the person and several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion may be involved in the matter of transfer as in the instant case which cannot be regarded and/or taken into the fold of punitive transfer. In the instant case, the authority found certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner and to maintain the healthy atmosphere of the school in question in which the petitioner developed certain self-interest, the authorities resorted to the impugned action which in my considered opinion cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner was not transferred solely on the basis of certain complaints. The procedure was adopted to verify the allegations through the subordinate officer, who in turn submitted a report and it was only thereafter on formation of an opinion, the impugned action was resorted to. 10. In the case of Ram Murti Singh v. District Inspector of Schools as reported in , the contention of the appellant that he being the senior most teacher in the school was entitled to be appointed as head of the institution did not find favour of the Apex Court in consideration of the fact that the appellant, though the senior most, was not found to be competent. His relationship with teachers and other employees was not satisfactory and hence the Management of the school expressed its apprehension that he would not be able to draw the cooperation of the teachers and employees for working as a team. The Apex Court held that if such factors were found to be detrimental to the interest of the institution and the appellant was not promoted though senior most, no fault could be found in the order of the District Inspector of Schools. In the instant case also, the Managing Committee of the School found certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner and if on that basis pursuant to a fact finding enquiry, the petitioner was transferred to another school, no fault is attributable to the impugned action and the order. 11. In the instant case also, the Managing Committee of the School found certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner and if on that basis pursuant to a fact finding enquiry, the petitioner was transferred to another school, no fault is attributable to the impugned action and the order. 11. The expression "punitive transfer" may be misleading for "transfer" has not been mentioned as one of the punishments in the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. A distinction is, therefore, drawn up between "punitive transfer" and the order of transfer by "itself being punitive". When in spite of alleged misconduct an employee is transferred from one station to another, the authority uses transfer as an alternative to disciplinary proceeding. In the case in hand the authority decided to transfer the petitioner from one school to another taking into the factors which cannot be said to be irrelevant and that too in proper management of a school administration. Merely because the authority did not proceed against the petitioner by way of departmental proceeding, it cannot be said that the authority is debarred from taking resort to the impugned action of transferring the petitioner to another school." 8. In another case, i.e., Balendra Nath Hazarika's case (supra), this Court outlined the scope of Court's interference with regard to transfer matter holding that transfer order can only be interfered if the same is made arbitrarily or for mala fide and collateral reasons or is contrary to the statutory provisions or the norms in force. 9. In view of the settled law as noticed above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Apex Court is not in favour of the petitioner and the cases cited above have no application in the case in hand. 10. Supporting the impugned transfer order Mr. Rahman, learned senior C.G.S.C. has argued that there is absolutely no violation of the Rules as alleged and the impugned order has not been passed mala fide. It has been passed only in the interest of administrative exigencies and that too, to bring and maintain discipline in the Force as there were complaints against this officer for his mismanagement and unsatisfactory performance in his administrative functioning, being the head of the Battalion serving as the Commandant of the same. It has been passed only in the interest of administrative exigencies and that too, to bring and maintain discipline in the Force as there were complaints against this officer for his mismanagement and unsatisfactory performance in his administrative functioning, being the head of the Battalion serving as the Commandant of the same. His case is that though Rule 14 prescribes for making a transfer by the month of April or every year the Rule has got amended in the year 2002 to be known as Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 (for short, the Amendment Rules) and the same was notified on 4.7.2002 wherein Rule 19 has been inserted immediately after Rule 1.8, Rule 19, provides as under: 19. Power to extend or reduce tenure of a member of the Force in certain cases. - Where the Director General of the Force is satisfied that in the interest of the Force or in the case of hardship, it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may, by order and for the reasons to be recorded in writing extend or reduce the tenure of a member of the Force. It is contended on behalf of Union of India that after this amendment the Director General of the Force has been duly authorised to exercise the power of extending or reduction of tenure for a member of the Force, if it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the Force. In exercise of such power of extension/reduction of the tenure the said authority has to be satisfied as regards the necessity and expediency for making such transfer and for such purpose reasons must be recorded in writing. 11. For the sake of convenience it would be proper to quote Rule 14 which reads as under: "14. Time Schedule for issue of transfer orders and implementation thereof. - Posting and transfer orders shall be issued by the competent authorities by April or every year strictly in order of seniority-cum-merit of individual case with due regard to tenures spent in different conditions. The affected person(s) shall be relieved latest by 30th June of the year." 12. Time Schedule for issue of transfer orders and implementation thereof. - Posting and transfer orders shall be issued by the competent authorities by April or every year strictly in order of seniority-cum-merit of individual case with due regard to tenures spent in different conditions. The affected person(s) shall be relieved latest by 30th June of the year." 12. The records has been produced before this Court so as to show that the Director General has recorded his reasons of his satisfaction of making such order of transfer in exercising the power under Rule 19 of the Amended Rules. Since the impugned order has been passed in view of Rule 19 of the Amended Rules, it appears that apparently and manifestly there is no such violation of any rule as claimed. 13. So far the allegation of mala fide is concerned, it is contended by Mr. Rahman that since transfer is a incident of service and impugned transfer did not attract any punitive action as contemplated under the Boarder Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, the Act), this transfer cannot be said to be punitive one. The petitioner has only been transferred out on the basis of a complaint made by his superior officer and that too in the rank of Inspector General with regard to his mis-management and unbecoming conduct. Further it is also argued that the order of transfer of such nature cannot be equated with or treated to be an order of dismissal or reduction of rank etc., so as to include in the list of penalties prescribed under the Act. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also closely perused the materials available on record including the Govt. records so produced by Mr. Rahman, learned senior CGSC. It appears from scanning of the above materials that the authority, i.e., the Director General has, in exercise of power under Rule 19 of the Amended Rules, approved, this transfer order by giving reasons as required under the law and as such ex-facie it appears that there is no violation of provisions of Rules. Rahman, learned senior CGSC. It appears from scanning of the above materials that the authority, i.e., the Director General has, in exercise of power under Rule 19 of the Amended Rules, approved, this transfer order by giving reasons as required under the law and as such ex-facie it appears that there is no violation of provisions of Rules. Insofar as the mala fide or punitive action is concerned, this Court does find any materials to substantiate the plea of mala fide taken by the petitioner and hence this Court, having regard to the above cited cases has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned transfer order is not based on mala fide or in the nature of punitive one. 15. It is settled law that transfer is an incident of service and the same cannot be treated to be punitive if the Govt. servant is transferred out from one place of posting to another due to his mismanagement and unbecoming behaviour. If the behaviour and conduct of the public servant become undesirable and unbecoming causing embarrassment to the concerned department/establishment, the competent authority shall have the liberty to take any action like transfer. The Court cannot substitute its own decision in the matter of transfer for that of the superior authority. The transfer of an employee, unless shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or prohibited by service rules or passed, by an incompetent authority, is not subject to judicial interference as a matter of routine. The scope of the judicial review of such transfer order is very narrow. 16. Be it also noted that panel actions have been categorically and explicitly laid down in the Act itself. Sections 48 and 53 prescribe for major and minor punishment respectively and on bare perusal of those sections, it transpires that the transfer has not been included in those punishments which require to be effected through a proper disciplinary proceeding under Act and Rules framed thereunder. 17. That being so, this Court is disinclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and consequently the same stands dismissed. 18. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 19. At this stage, Mr. 17. That being so, this Court is disinclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and consequently the same stands dismissed. 18. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 19. At this stage, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been facing hardship in carrying out the, transfer order for the reasons that his two minor children who have been prosecuting their studies in the respective classes, are in the midst of their sessions and his wife is also an ailing lady for which he wants to stay back at least 3(three) months at Shillong till completion of the annual examinations of his children and, therefore, he may be permitted to move the competent authority by way of representation. This submission appears to be fair and innocuous. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move the competent authority by way of filing representation incorporating all his grievances and inconveniences as projected in this writ petition within one month from today and the same shall be disposed of by the said authority in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in any case, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said representation. 20. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case into account there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed