JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge who had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal which also had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant against the order of his transfer. While upholding the order of the Tribunal the learned Single Judge took suo motu notice of the conduct of the petitioner/appellant to the effect that he had not joined the place of posting as per the order of transfer and yet was contesting the same before the Court being the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge imposed a cost of Rs. 2000/- on the petitioner/appellant herein to be deposited in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and it was also observed that the disciplinary authority was expected to take disciplinary action against the petitioner/appellant for the grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner and complete the said enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 2. The petitioner/appellant although has not challenged the dismissal of the writ petition in so far as the order of the transfer is concerned, it has been submitted that the imposition of cost to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and also to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him for not joining the place of posting is not legally sustainable and hence it is fit to be quashed and set aside. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-State, we have noticed that the respondent-State had not filed any writ petition which could be practically treated as a cross appeal or a cross objection against the order of the Tribunal by which the order of transfer was not interfered with by the Tribunal itself, yet the learned Single Judge on his own, felt very sensitive and observed that the conduct of the petitioner employee was highly objectionable as he should have complied with the order of the transfer by joining the place of posting. That has been the reason for the learned Single Judge for imposing a cost of Rs. 2000/- to be deposited in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him. 4. That has been the reason for the learned Single Judge for imposing a cost of Rs. 2000/- to be deposited in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund and for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him. 4. While we appreciate the concern of the learned Single Judge to maintain discipline in the Department for ensuring compliance of the order of transfer, yet it is difficult to concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that a cost was fit to be imposed on him merely for taking recourse to the legal remedies. It has nowhere been laid down that if an employee is aggrieved with the order of transfer for any reason, he should never ever avail a chance to challenge the same in a court of law, meaning thereby that an employee cannot be divested of legal right to challenge an order of transfer for legal and sustainable reason and merely because the petitioner/appellant failed to sustain his claim in regard to his challenge to the order of transfer and had not joined the place of posting the same in our view cannot entail imposition of cost specially when the respondent-Government of Rajasthan has not challenged the action of the appellant for not joining his place of posting by filing another writ petition in this regard or initiating any other departmental proceeding. Besides this, we also do not agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that while dismissing the writ petition a direction could be given for initiating disciplinary proceeding in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. A disciplinary proceeding against the appellant, in our view, should have been left to the discretion of the competent authorities of the department in this regard as initiation of a disciplinary proceeding under the service rules, lies within the domain and discretion of the authorities. Although the Court under its inherent jurisdiction may issue direction in a given case, the same would be justified only under extremely grave circumstances. Although the Court under its inherent jurisdiction may issue direction in a given case, the same would be justified only under extremely grave circumstances. In our view, this situation was not existing in the facts and circumstances of this case for merely if an employee challenges the order of transfer without joining his place of posting, the Court generally will have no reason to direct the authorities to initiate disciplinary proceeding specially in absence of any challenge to that effect at the instance of the respondent-Department which itself has the power to take such action. We, therefore, deem it just and appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as the imposition of cost of Rs. 2,000/- is concerned and also observe that the direction given by the learned Single Judge for initiating disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner/appellant for not joining the place of posting and challenging the order of his transfer be treated merely directory and not mandatory in any manner. Thus the direction may be treated as an observation of the learned Single Judge but the same shall not have a binding effect as no employee can be divested of his right to challenge any order which, in his perception, is not legally sustainable and merely because the challenge to a particular order passed by the employer does not find favour with the Court, the same cannot entail the consequence of initiation of disciplinary proceeding. 5. We further make it clear that we are not interfering with the dismissal of the writ petition and the order of Tribunal in so far as the order of transfer is concerned, the same shall be treated as confirmed since we are not interfering with that part of the order of the Courts below. The appeal thus stands partly allowed without any order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******