Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner who is a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has called into question the legal validity of the order passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur passed in O. A. No. 1042/2005, dated 14-3-2006 dismissing his petition and has also challenged his transfer from bhopal to Shillong and, as modified later, to Ahmedabad in the present petition. ( 2. ) AT the very outset, it is necessary to state that although transfer of an employee is an incidence of service and when made on administrative grounds normally does not call for interference by the Courts of law, the present case involves certain unusual and peculiar aspects in an otherwise ostensibly simple transfer matter which has compelled us to examine the issues involved in detail and to adjudicate upon them. ( 3. ( 3. ) THE brief facts which are necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner is a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise belonging to indian Revenue Service and was posted at Bhopal Commissionerate in 2002; that he has suffered a drug reaction and is undergoing treatment at Bhopal; that in January, 2005 the petitioner was shifted and posted in the preventive branch at Bhopal; that the petitioners representation requesting that he be kept at bhopal as he was undertaking treatment was accepted and the respondents continued him at Bhopal; that he was transferred from Bhopal to Shillong vide order dated 22-8-2005; that the petitioner had filed a petition before the Central administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur against his order of transfer dated 22-8-2005 which was disposed of vide order 27-9-2005 passed in O. A. No. 897/2005 with a direction to the respondents to consider his representation and pass a reasoned order thereon and till then not to disturb him from his present place of posting; that his representation was rejected vide order dated 19-10-2005 on the ground that on enquiry into anonymous complaints against the petitioner it was found that the petitioner was apparently giving an impression that he was working on "caste-biased ideology"; that the petitioner filed a second petition before the Tribunal against his initial transfer order dated 22-8-2005 as well as the order rejecting his representation dated 19-10-2005 which was registered as O. A. No. 1042/2005; that during the pendency of the second petition the petitioners first order of transfer to Shillong was cancelled and modified and he was posted to Ahmedabad in place of Shillong vide order dated 22-12-2005. ( 4. ) THE Tribunal by the impugned order dated 14-3-2006 has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner in view of the subsequent modification of the petitioners transfer to Ahmedabad by holding that the transfer of the petitioner was on administrative grounds and therefore did not warrant interference. ( 5. ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the petitioner has filed the present petition alleging that in the year 2004 the Central Bureau of investigation raided the Preventive Branch of Bhopal Office on complaints and found several irregularities and therefore the petitioner who, enjoyed an honest reputation, was shifted to the Preventive Branch in January, 2005. The petitioner conducted detailed scrutiny of the records and reopened several assessments. The petitioner conducted detailed scrutiny of the records and reopened several assessments. It is stated that the petitioner prima facie discovered that undeserving concessions and rebates had been granted by the officers at Bhopal to the tune of more than rupees 27 crores. As several of the officers who had been posted at the Bhopal Office apprehended disciplinary as well as criminal action against them on the basis of the reassessment undertaken by the petitioner, a false anonymous complaint was made against him alleging caste-bias and only because the petitioner is a Bramhin by caste he has been transferred to appease others which amounts to malafide and arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the respondents. ( 6. ) THE petitioner has questioned the legal validity of the impugned order mainly on the ground that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner dated 22-8-2005 from Bhopal to Shillong was issued by the respondents in view of an anonymous complaint filed against the petitioner alleging that he was working on a caste-biased ideology although the complaint was found to be false. In spite of the fact that the respondents did not find any truth or substance in the complaint on a discrete inquiry conducted by them, the respondents have transferred the petitioner on the ground that he was apparently giving an impression that he was working on caste-biased ideology. It is further submitted that the impugned order also disclosed apparent non-application of mind as the petitioner was transferred from Madhya Pradesh under the impression that he was a local officer hailing from Madhya Pradesh whereas admittedly the petitioner belongs to Uttar Pradesh. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an officer of the Indian Revenue Services and has throughout been working in english. However, the respondents without any factual basis or enquiry have, on their own, concluded that he is not very conversant with the English language and on that ground have taken a decision to transfer him to a non-Hindi speaking State till he improves his administrative skills and working. ( 7. However, the respondents without any factual basis or enquiry have, on their own, concluded that he is not very conversant with the English language and on that ground have taken a decision to transfer him to a non-Hindi speaking State till he improves his administrative skills and working. ( 7. ) ADDITIONALLY, it has been urged that on realizing that they had committed a mistake in transferring the petitioner from Bhopal to Shillong the respondents, in a clumsy effort to cover up their mistakes, an inappreciable subterfuge, have cancelled his transfer to Shillong and instead transferred him to Ahmedabad during the pendency of the case which amounts to interference in the judicial process. Even otherwise it is alleged that the cancellation and modification of his transfer does not have any effect or impact on the petitioners case as he has challenged the very basis and reason of his transfer from Bhopal and as the cancellation and modification of the transfer changing his place of posting from Shillong to Ahmedabad is part of the same process and is based on the same complaint it suffers from the same illegalities. The petitioner has categorically denied the allegation of the respondents that he had requested or given his consent on telephone for being transferred to ahmedabad. ( 8. ) THE petitioner also assails his transfer on the ground that it is in violation of the mandatory and binding orders of the Central Vigilance commission dated 26-9-1999 according to which no action can be taken on anonymous or pseudonymous complaints. In spite of this order, which is binding on them, the respondents enquired into the anonymous complaint against the petitioner and ordered his transfer only to appease the complainant, who belongs to another caste, and have victimized and discriminated against the petitioner only on the ground that he is a Bramhin by caste, which is violative of his fundamental rights. ( 9. ) THE respondents, on the other hand, have stated that an anonymous complaint was received by them alleging caste bias against the petitioner on which the respondents conducted a discreet enquiry wherein, it was found that though the allegations of caste bias were unsubstantiated, yet as the manner of working of the petitioner apparently gave a general impression of caste-biased ideology, he was transferred from Bhopal to Shillong. Thereafter, in compliance with the orders of the Tribunal dated 27-9-2005 passed in O. A. No. 897/2005 the respondents re-examined the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 19-10-2005. Subsequently, as the petitioner met officers in the Central Board of Excise and Customs and represented for reconsidering the order transferring him to Shillong as he was undergoing treatment, his case was re-examined and the petitioner was posted at Ahmedabad vide order dated 28-12-2005 in modification of the previous order of transfer. It is also stated that this revised order was passed after taking options from the petitioner on phone and therefore in view of this subsequent order of transfer the Tribunal has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. The respondents have produced the record relating to the transfer of the petitioner containing the anonymous complaints, the report of the discrete enquiry etc. to substantiate their contentions. ( 10. ) TO appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective the admitted and undisputed facts which have been brought on record and which are necessary for proper adjudication of the issue are hereunder enumerated. Since the respondents have produced the record to indicate the nature of the complaint and the result of the discreet inquiry conducted thereon we think it appropriate to reproduce them in toto:- The report of the discrete enquiry on this complaint was as follows:- ( 11. ) IT is also apparent from Page No. 48, Sr. No. 15 in Table No. 6 of the file F. No. A-32012/3/04-Ad/ii which contains the list of officer being transferred and also the reasons for transfer that the petitioner has been transferred from Bhopal CX to Shillong CX on the recommendations of the director General (Vig.)[f/h] and not on administrative grounds. However, while rejecting the petitioners representation which was considered in accordance with the direction issued by the Tribunal, the following order was passed by the respondent on 19-10-2005 which has been brought on record as Annexure P-9:- ( 12. ) THE respondents in the Counter reply filed before the Tribunal in para 2 have stated "the petitioners initial order to Shillong was modified and in place of Shillong he was transferred to Ahmedabad". This fact has again been reiterated in Para 10 of the counter reply. In the counter reply filed by the respondents in reply to Paras 6. 12 to 6. This fact has again been reiterated in Para 10 of the counter reply. In the counter reply filed by the respondents in reply to Paras 6. 12 to 6. 17 of the petition, the respondents have admitted the fact of filing of the complaint and of conducting an enquiry thereon in respect of the caste-biased functioning of the petitioner. Another relevant document which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-16 along with the petition is an order dated 29-6-1999 passed by the Central Vigilance commissioner totally prohibiting the taking of any action on anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints, the relevant part of which reads as under:- "it is, therefore, order under powers vested in the CVC under Para 3 (v) of the DOPT Resolution No. 371/20/99-AVD. III, dated 4th april, 1999 that with immediate effect no action should at all be taken on any anonymous or pseudonymous complaints. They must just be filed. This order is also available on web site of the CVC at http://eve. nic. in. All CVOs must ensure that these instructions are strictly complied with. " ( 13. III, dated 4th april, 1999 that with immediate effect no action should at all be taken on any anonymous or pseudonymous complaints. They must just be filed. This order is also available on web site of the CVC at http://eve. nic. in. All CVOs must ensure that these instructions are strictly complied with. " ( 13. ) A conjoint reading of all the admitted and undisputed facts clearly shes that:- (a) an anonymous complaint alleging caste-bias was filed against the petitioner; (b) although, order of the CVC dated 29-6-1999 (Annexure P-16), prohibited taking of any action on such an anonymous complaint a discrete inquiry was conducted by the Director General Vigilance on this complaint; (c) the report of the discrete inquiry held that (i) the petitioner hails from Madhya Pradesh and is a local officer, (ii) the petitioner does not have command over the English language and is heavily dependent upon a group of subordinate officers who happen to belong to a particular community, (iii) the petitioner is blindly signing notices dictated by others and was therefore not in a position to explain about them when enquired, (iv) the charge that he is biased towards a particular high caste at the cost of others and that he is functioning on caste-biased ideology is not substantiated, (v) the petitioner is a local officer hailing from Madhya Pradesh and is over dependent upon a particular section of officers which "apparently gives a general impression to others of his caste biased ideology", and (vi) it would be desirable that he is considered for immediate shifting out of Bhopal/madhya Pradesh and is posted at a suitable place till he improves his administrative skills and working; (d) the petitioners transfer from Bhopal was not on administrative grounds but was based on the report of the Director General Vigilance; (e) the respondents rejected the petitioners representation on the ground that the petitioners transfer from Bhopal was necessitated as he belonged to Madhya Pradesh and as on inquiry into complaints it was found that his manner of working apparently gave an impression that he worked on caste- biased ideology; (f) the petitioners initial order of transfer to Shillong was cancelled and modified to Ahmedabad during the pendency of the petition and therefore his transfer to Ahmedabad is not a fresh transfer but is only in modification of his initial order of transfer and is based on the same reasons and considerations; (g) admittedly the petitioner does not belong to Madhya Prad but belongs to Uttar Pradesh and being an Indian Revenue Sen officer has throughout been performing his work in English; a (h) no explanation or justification has been brought on record the respondents as to why, in spite of the order of the Cem vigilance Commissioner, dated 29-6-1999 which prohibits tak action on anonymous or pseudonymous complaints, did respondents take cognizance of the anonymous complaint in! present case and conduct a discrete inquiry thereon. respondents have also failed to explain as to why in spite of find that the complaint was false, did the respondents transfer petitioner on the ground that he was apparently though not actua working with a caste-biased ideology. ( 14. ) AS we have stated earlier, transfers which are made administrative exigencies or in public interest or for smooth functioning of system do not warrant any interference under Articles 226 and 227 off constitution of India. Similarly cases which require adjudication of dispute question of facts or sifting of facts also generally do not warrant interferen under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, we also profitably refer to the law laid down in the cases of S. B. I. Vs. Anjan Sany (2001) 5 SCC 508 , National Hydroelectric Corporation, (2001) 8 SCC 574 , Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245 at state of U. P. and another Vs. Siya Ram and another, (2004) 7 SCC 405 , which also to the same effect. ( 15. ) CONVERSELY it is also apparent from the above mentioned judgment that a transfer order which is made in malafide exercise of powers or is contra to statutory guidelines governing transfer or passed by an Incomplete authority or amount to victimization and hostile discrimination and which is in the interest of public service or administrative exigencies is susceptible judicial scrutiny. It is also settled law that State action must not suffer fro "wednesbury unreasonableness" that is, be so unreasonable as to shock conscience of any reasonable man. ( 16. ) IN the present case as has been stated above there is no dispute regarding the facts of the case. It is also settled law that State action must not suffer fro "wednesbury unreasonableness" that is, be so unreasonable as to shock conscience of any reasonable man. ( 16. ) IN the present case as has been stated above there is no dispute regarding the facts of the case. In the sense it is admitted by both the parties the an anonymous complaint was filed against the petitioner, a discrete inquiry we conducted on this complaint, the allegation of working with a caste-bias again the petitioner was not found to be true, that the petitioner has been transfers because his manner of functioning apparently gave the impression that he we working on caste-biased ideology, that the petitioners transfer was on the recommendation of the Director General Vigilance and not on administrative exigencies, that he belongs to Uttar Pradesh and not Madhya Pradesh and the he is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service wherein he has passed an examination in English. ( 17. ) THOUGH, when individually considered, the impact of the incorrect mention of the fact that the petitioner belongs to Madhya Pradesh and does not know English in the order rejecting the petitioners representation, except for indicating the extent of absence of application of mind by the respondents, is not fatal. However, the transfer of the petitioner on the ground that he apparently gave an impression that he worked on caste-biased ideology, in spite of the fact of recording a finding in the negative in the discrete inquiry conducted into the anonymous complaint would shock the conscience of any reasonable man to say the least. ( 18. ) ARTICLE 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before law and equal protection of the laws to every citizen. Articles 15 (1) and 16 (2) prohibit discrimination against any citizen on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth or any of them even in matters relating to employment. The government has been making all out efforts since the last several decades to prevent and abolish discrimination on the ground of caste against any of its citizen. In the present case the allegations made in the anonymous complaint against the petitioner that he was working on caste biased ideology were not found to be proved or substantiated. The government has been making all out efforts since the last several decades to prevent and abolish discrimination on the ground of caste against any of its citizen. In the present case the allegations made in the anonymous complaint against the petitioner that he was working on caste biased ideology were not found to be proved or substantiated. Yet he has been transferred on the ground that his functioning "apparently" gave an impression that he was working on caste biased ideology. It is not known on what basis the said observations have been made against the petitioner specifically in view of the fact that the allegation of caste-bias were not found to be proved or substantiated by the respondents themselves. When the allegations have not been found proved, to label or identify the petitioner as one who is working on caste-biased ideology merely on the basis of an anonymous complaint or on an apparent, though unjustified and unsubstantiated impression of caste-bias, defies logic and reason. It is no doubt true that the petitioner or any other member of an All India service can be transferred to any place in the country and is obliged and duty bound to comply with the same, but to transfer him on the ground that some unidentified colleague feels that he is a casteist, in other words only because he belongs to a particular caste, is in violation of his fundamental rights under articles 14,15 (1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution of India and is also stigmatic as it would label and identify him, without adjudication or justification, as a person who works on caste-bias for all times to come and would make him vulnerable to all and any such further anonymous complaints at whatever place he is posted and could be used as a convenient tool to take any action against him or move him out as and when desired, by any person. Such an action also makes serious in-roads into the personal rights of the petitioner as an individual as well as his fundamental rights, as the petitioner has apparently been transferred for having a working association with certain colleague who happen to belong to his caste and which apparently has not found favour with the respondents, thereby giving a clear message to the petitioner to abstain from having any such relation with persons belonging to his own caste in future. The impugned order, if permitted to stand, would amount to opening a Pandoras box and would let loose the very evil that the Constitution seeks to contain and eradicate. The Supreme Court in the case Lata Singh Vs. State of U. P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 . has observed:-"the caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. " ( 19. ) WHILE the power and authority to transfer in administrative exigencies for proper administration of the department as well as for optimum utilization of the potential of the employees is an essential part of administration, it is imperative that this power should be exercised only for the above mentioned purpose. The power to transfer cannot be used as a tool to victimize an employee and must conform to the standards of reasonableness which distinguishes proper use and exercise of power from improper abuse of power. Exercise of powers in the latter case suffers from the fault of "unreasonableness" which is a generic term, that with the passage of time, has been interpreted to cover all action which suffers from absurdity or caprice or with illegitimate motives and purpose or is an exercise of powers for irrelevant considerations and defies logic to the extent that it shocks the conscience of a reasonable man. In this last aspect it has now come to be known as "wednesbury unreasonableness", as it was first enunciated in the case of Associated Provincial picture Houses Ltd. Vs. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 KB 223, (1947) 2 All er 680, wherein it was observed:- "it is true that discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean ? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word "unreasonable" in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he acting unreasonably. For instance, a person entrusted with a properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he acting unreasonably. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. Warrington, LJ in short Vs. Poole Corporation, 1926 CH 66, gave the example of the red-haired teacher dismissed because she had red hair. This is unreasonable in one sense. In other it is taking into consideration extraneous matters. It is so unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and, in fact, all these things run into one another. " ( 20. ) THIS preposition of law has been extensively considered and affirmed in several judgments. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad (VI) V Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1 , it has been held as follows :- "the correct understanding of the Wednesbury principle is that a decision will be said to be unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense if (i) it is based on wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant consideration, (ii) it has ignored a very relevant material which it should have taken into consideration, or (iii) it is so absurd that no sensible person could ever have reached it. " As observed by Lord Diplock in CCSU case a decision will be said to suffer from Wednesbury unreasonableness if it is- "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. " (All ER 951 a-b ). ( 21. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that the transfer of the petitioner amounts to improper abuse of power and is in defiance of logic and accepted moral standards and is therefore so absurd that no sensible or reasonable person could ever have passed such an order. In other words it suffers from "wednesbury unreasonableness" rendering it unsustainable. ( 22. In other words it suffers from "wednesbury unreasonableness" rendering it unsustainable. ( 22. ) WE are of the view that the exercise of powers by the respondents is malafide, arbitrary and suffers from "wednesbury Unreasonableness" to the extent that it would shock the conscience of any reasonable person and is also not in the interest of public service and administration as the petitioner is being victimized and subjected to hostile discrimination only because he belongs to a particular caste and his functioning is giving an impression, to some unknown and anonymous member of another caste that he is working on caste-bias. To permit the respondents to transfer the petitioner on this ground would be violative of his fundamental right to equality before law and equal protection of the laws irrespective of his caste as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and also against the very spirit and object of the principles embodied in the constitution of India which prohibit and prevent any person from being subjected to any discrimination, humiliation, disqualification, hardship or unjust treatment because of his caste. We would like to make it clear that we have rendered this opinion as we have held that the exercise of the power to transfer in the present case by the respondents is unconstitutional and illegal and not on the ground that the petitioner is entitled or has a right to remain posted at bhopal. ( 23. ) FOR the above mentioned reasons the view expressed by the tribunal that merely by change of the place of posting to Ahmedabad the petitioners transfer would become a transfer on administrative grounds is totally unacceptable as this modification does not change, modify or wipe out the reasons and the basis on which the petitioner is being transferred out of bhopal. In fact by mere modification qua place the reasons embedded in the impugned order of transfer do not get nullified or annihilated or change the fundamental character of the impugned order. ( 24. ) IN view of our foregoing analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner from Bhopal to Shillong subsequently modified to Ahmedabad, deserves to be and is hereby quashed. ( 24. ) IN view of our foregoing analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner from Bhopal to Shillong subsequently modified to Ahmedabad, deserves to be and is hereby quashed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are also constrained to observe that the note and observations against the petitioner that he is apparently though not actually working on caste biased ideology deserve to be struck-off the record, not to be considered at any point of time against the petitioner for any purpose. ( 25. ) AT this stage, it is to be noted that the petitioner in spite of being transferred from Bhopal to Ahmedabad has not gone and joined his place of posting till date and that there is an interim order of this Court preventing the respondents from taking any disciplinary action against the petitioner for not joining his place of posting at Ahmedabad. Under the circumstances while we quash the order of transfer of the petitioner from Bhopal to Ahmedabad we feel constrained to direct that the petitioner shall not be entitled to salary for the period commencing fifteen days after the modified order of transfer to ahmedabad, i. e. , the order dated 28-12-2005 till the date he again joins duties at bhopal. ( 26. ) WITH the said directions and observation, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.