JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Order No. 21/2005 dated 5.4.2005 issued by the respondent No. 4-D.I.G.-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F. East Central Railway, Hazipur Zone, Hazipur whereby he ordered transfer of the petitioner from CIB/Dhanbad to the Divisional Reserve Company, Sonepur Division, Sonepur, within four months of his joining at Dhanbad as an Inspector in the Crime Intelligence branch. 2. The petitioners case is that he joined the CIB/Dhanbad as an Inspector on 14.12.2004 on promotion and transfer from Danapur Division. He was allotted a railway quarter and subsequently he brought his family at Dhanbad and got his two children admitted to a reputed school at Dhanbad. The petitioners further case is that on 15.3.2005 he submitted a confidential report to respondent No. 4-D.I.G.-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway Hajipur Zone, after he detected one theft of 42 MT of Pig iron near Telo Station under Gomo post and some officers of the R.P.F. were found involved in the said theft. It is alleged that because of the report submitted by the petitioner, the officers of the Railway Protection Force involved in the said theft approached the authorities concerned for premature transfer of the petitioner and they succeeded in their venture as the petitioner was transferred from CIB/Dhanbad to the Divisional Reserve Company, Sonepur Division vide the impugned order dated 5.4.2005. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia, that on review of the working performance of the petitioner, it was noticed that he was not discharging his duties properly and was in the habit of leaving the Head Quarter for days together without obtaining prior permission from the controlling authority. As per instruction issued by C.S.C./R.P.F., Hazipur, the petitioner was directed to give regular attendance in the office of Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Dhanbad. The Deputy Inspector General/ Administration Railway Board vide letter dated 29.3.2005 conveyed approval of DG/RPF for premature transfer of the petitioner from Dhanbad to some non- sensitive post. Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred from Dhanbad Division to Sonepur Division vide the impugned order dated 5.4.2005. 4. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order of transfer as being illegal and mala fide. Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred from Dhanbad Division to Sonepur Division vide the impugned order dated 5.4.2005. 4. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order of transfer as being illegal and mala fide. learned Counsel submitted in terms of Rule 93 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, ordinarily no member of the Force shall be transferred from one station to another unless he has been at a station for the normally prescribed tenure nor he shall be allowed at a station for more than one year without specific approval of the Chief Security Commissioner concerned. learned Counsel also drew my attention towards the relevant provision of standing order and submitted that in case of premature transfer, prior approval of the Director General/R. P. F. is mandatory in case of transfer of Inspectors. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Modi, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the impugned order of transfer was issued on administrative reasons and prior approval of the authority was obtained which is evident from the impugned order itself. 6. The petitioner in the writ petition has categorically made the statements in paragraphs 8 to 11 that after joining at Dhanbad he detected one theft of 42 MT of Pig iron near Telo Station under Gomo post and some officers of R.P.F. were found involved in the said theft. The petitioner accordingly submitted a confidential report to the respondent No. 4 on 15.3.2005. In para 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he in the capacity of General Secretary, Railway Protection Force Association of the East Central Railway Zone raised his voice against the corrupt and malicious activities of the higher authorities of the RPF. A resolution to that effect was passed on 30.3.2005 in the first Central Committee Meeting of the Railway Protection Force Association held at Gaya. In the said meeting, the petitioner strongly condemned the corrupt and malicious activities of the higher authorities of the RPF especially in relation to premature transfer of the members of the Force, Curiously enough, the respondents in their counter affidavit have not controverted those statements and simply stated that those statements are matter of records. In the said meeting, the petitioner strongly condemned the corrupt and malicious activities of the higher authorities of the RPF especially in relation to premature transfer of the members of the Force, Curiously enough, the respondents in their counter affidavit have not controverted those statements and simply stated that those statements are matter of records. There is no denial from the side of the respondents about the submission of the confidential report of the petitioner with regard to theft of huge quantity of pig iron and the involvement of the higher officers. It has also not been specifically denied about the corruption prevailing in R.P.F. 7. Besides the above, it has not been disputed by the respondents that in case of premature transfer, approval of the higher authority has to be obtained. In this connection, the learned Counsel of the respondents referred to letter of approval dated 29.3.2005 which has been annexed as Anneuxre-C to the counter affidavit. For better appreciation, the said letter is reproduce hereinbelow: Mukhya Surakchha Ayuktya/Re. Su. Ba. Purva Madhya Railway, Hajipur SubPremature transfer of enrolled members of the Force. Ref. Your Railways letter No. E/P/283/IPF/ECR/HJP/2004 dated 24.2.2005 Approval of the Director General/RPF is conveyed for transfer of the following IPFs as contained in your proposal quoted above: 1. Mattyas Tilming/IPF/Garhara-1 2. A.K. Sahi/IPF/Div. Store/MGS 3. R.C.P. Gupta/IPF/Mansi Post 4. M.S.D. Gupta/IPF/Gaya 5. Ramji Sharma, DIPF/Sonepur 6. Suresh Dubey/IPF/Gomoh Post Approval is also conveyed for the following: Shri G.C. Dubey/DQM/Samastipur and Shri A.K. Tiwari/IPF/CIB/Dhanbad should be shifted to some non-sensitive postings viz., reserve inspectors or D.I. Cell. CSR of Shri G.C. Dubey is returned herewith. 8. From perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is clear that approval was conveyed for transfer of 6 Officers and not of this petitioner. The concerned authority gave approval of posting of this petitioner to some non-sensitive post. It would be interesting to note that petitioner joined as Inspector at Dhanbad on 14.12.2004. In discharge of his duties, he detected theft of huge quantity of Pig iron and a confidential report was sent by him on 15.3.2005. In his report, he also pointed out involvement of some Officers of R.P.F. Instead of probing the matter, within 10-12 days the aforementioned letter dated 29.3.2005 was obtained for shifting the petitioner to some non-sensitive post. In discharge of his duties, he detected theft of huge quantity of Pig iron and a confidential report was sent by him on 15.3.2005. In his report, he also pointed out involvement of some Officers of R.P.F. Instead of probing the matter, within 10-12 days the aforementioned letter dated 29.3.2005 was obtained for shifting the petitioner to some non-sensitive post. It is therefore, contended that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner is not only in violation of the Railway Protection Force Rules and the standing orders, but also mala fade, in nature. 9. It is well settled that an order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide, or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and Ors. 2001 AIR SCW 1674. 10. In the instant case, as noticed above, the sudden transfer of the petitioner within 3-4 months is in violation of Rule 93 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and also the standing orders. Moreover, no approval for regular transfer of the petitioner on administrative ground has been obtained. On the contrary, the respondents succeeded in getting some kind of approval of posting of petitioner in non-sensitive post while getting the approval of transfer of other officers. Moreover, the petitioner was sought to be shifted to some other non-sensitive post because of theft detected by him and also the involvement of other Officer of R.P.F. was suspected. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of the Rules and standing orders and is also mala fade. The said order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner is quashed.