Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, CJ The above writ petition is directed against the order dated 9th February 2009 in application No. 4732/2008 on the file of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, where the 4th respondent herein challenged the orders of transfer dated 4th September 2008 which was originally challenged before the Tribunal in Application No. 4299/2008. The said application No. 4299/2008 was disposed by the Tribunal by order dated 5th September 2008 giving liberty to the 4th respondent herein to file a review application before the Cadre Management Authority and the Cadre Management Authority by order dated 24th September 2008 dismissed the review petition and the same was challenged before Tribunal in Application No. 4732/2008. 2. By the impugned orders of transfer dated 4th September 2008 and 24th September 2008, the 4th respondent was transferred from Manipal Police Station, Udupi District to CHESCOM, Chamarajanagar, while the petitioner herein who was arrayed as 4th respondent in the application before the Tribunal was transferred from CSP, Udupi to Manipal Police Station, Udupi District in the place of 4th respondent herein who was applicant in Application No.4732/2008. 3. The case of the applicant/4th respondent herein was that his transfer was at the instance of 5th respondent in the application before the Tribunal namely, one Sri Raghupathi Bhat, a Member of Legislative Assembly from Udupi Taluk and Udupi District. But of course, the 5th respondent viz., Sri Raghupathi Bhat in the application denied the said allegation made by the 4th respondent herein. The writ petitioner, who was arrayed as 4th respondent before the Tribunal, did not contest the application and though a Counsel represented him, he only adopted the stand of the Government. 4. The grievance of the applicant-4th respondent before this Court is that he took all sincere efforts to investigate into the alleged murder of Smt. Padmapriya who was none other than the wife of 5th respondent before the Tribunal without yielding to any external pressure whatsoever. In order to substantiate the same, the 4th respondent herein also produced the Station House Diary. It is under such facts and circumstances of the case, proposals were made to transfer the 4th respondent herein out of the jurisdiction of Manipal Police Station. 5. In order to substantiate the same, the 4th respondent herein also produced the Station House Diary. It is under such facts and circumstances of the case, proposals were made to transfer the 4th respondent herein out of the jurisdiction of Manipal Police Station. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing all the parties have rendered a finding extracting the very materials available in the Station House Diary which are self-explanatory, which, in our view, will be apt to record the very finding of the Tribunal for better appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case: "16. We had directed the learned Government Pleader to secure the Station House Diary maintained in the police station. The original we have seen it and a Xerox Copy of the relevant portion is produced before this Tribunal. The relevant portion of the Station House Diary dated 29.6.2008 maintained in the Manipal Police Station, a typed copy of which is produced before this Tribunal, which reads as follows: “kannadam” The English translation of Kannada portion extracted above reads as hereunder: "In view of security of the accused Athul Ram @ Athul Rao, he was produced before the Honourable Court in the evening at 19-10 hours with detailed report. Honourable Court remanded him to judicial custody upto 9.7.2008. Hence, he was handover to Udupi Jail and obtained acknowledgment. Even though, the Honourable Court remanded the accused to policy custody upto 14-00 hours till 30.6.2008, there was a possibility of Law and Order problem, being created as a large number of people had gathered in the Court premises at the time of producing the accused to the Court on 24.6.2008. There was a possible situation of the accused being attached by some miscreants while getting him down from the police jeep and making him get into the jeep. At the time of avoiding this situation, some miscreants banged the police jeep with their hands and showed their anger. In the above background, necessary action was taken to produce the accused before this Court well before time in order to avoid any untoward incidents. While I was returning after handing over the accused to Udupi Jail, Udupi MLA Sri Raghupathi Bhat telephoned to my mobile and said "why you have produced Athul Ram to the Court today? I will see you, Government is ours. While I was returning after handing over the accused to Udupi Jail, Udupi MLA Sri Raghupathi Bhat telephoned to my mobile and said "why you have produced Athul Ram to the Court today? I will see you, Government is ours. You have not subjected him to Aeroplane, not removed his clothes, not tortured him." The above mater was brought to the notice of the higher officers. Despite this, he has been interfering in my investigation unnecessarily since 9.6.2008." 17. This document has not been disputed by the respondents. However, the 5th respondent has expressed his ignorance. He only contends that he has not interfered with the investigation by the Applicant, in the Criminal Cases filed by him in the Manipal Police Station. In this Station House Diary which is maintained in the Police Station the applicant has written that the 5th Respondent was interfering with the working pattern of investigation by the Applicant. The gist of the relevant portion is to the effect that the 5th Respondent took objection with the applicant in producing Sri Athul Rao before the jurisdictional magistrate. Further the Applicant should not have produce Sri Athul Rao before the magistrate as no torture was given to him and that too when the 5th Respondent – Government is functioning. It is also written that this has been brought to the notice of the higher officers by the Applicant. 18. It is strange that the 5th respondent had not denied the contents of the Station House Diary. But he has said that he had no knowledge of arrest of Sri Athul Rao who appears to be culprit/accused in the said case of his missing of his wife. The 5th respondent – MLA has filed his reply statement on 18.12.2008. In para -3 of the reply statement, the 5th respondent has stated that he has no knowledge about the arrest of Sri Athul Rao. May be, it may be the case that it was not for him to interfere in the investigation but it cannot be said that the 5th Respondent had no knowledge about the arrest of the said Sri Athul Rao even on the date of filing of his reply statement which is dated 18.12.2008. May be, it may be the case that it was not for him to interfere in the investigation but it cannot be said that the 5th Respondent had no knowledge about the arrest of the said Sri Athul Rao even on the date of filing of his reply statement which is dated 18.12.2008. This appears to us very peculiar, particularly being a Member of the Legislative Assembly and being an aggrieved person (since his wife was missing and killed) no body could expect a husband keeping mum or ignorant of the arrest of the culprit or the accused even on 18.12.2008 while the culprit was arrested as early: 29.6.2008 as per the Station House Diary. In fact, this incident had created and has become sensational issue not only in the State of Karnataka but also in India which this Tribunal could take judicial notice of it. However, we do not want to say anything in this regard. But, we feel that a MLA who is a public figure making such a statement that he had no knowledge about the arrest of Sri Athul Rao etc., even on 18.12.2008 is very absurd. However, we do not see a simple sentence in the three transfer files that there is any interference by the 5th Respondent. But, we feel, all these transfers appear to be made over by telephone conversation and even the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is taken over phone when the Hon'ble Chief Minister was in America attending "AKKA World Kannada Conference — 2008". We express our displeasure in dealing with such kind of transfers without following the guidelines which are held to be statutory value by this Tribunal over time and again since 2005 in several applications. We are unable to understand what was the public interest, under what exigencies the transfer were made. The new Government to recharge the Police force (as filed in the reply statement) can't pass any orders in its whims and fancies. The transfer guidelines dated 22.11.2001 and 7.7.2008 which this tribunal time and again has held has got statutory powers and the violation of which vitiates the transfer. 19. While passing the impugned order these transfer guidelines have been given a clear go-by. Nothing is followed. How the Home Minister could get names of the officers concerned is also not forthcoming. The transfer guidelines dated 22.11.2001 and 7.7.2008 which this tribunal time and again has held has got statutory powers and the violation of which vitiates the transfer. 19. While passing the impugned order these transfer guidelines have been given a clear go-by. Nothing is followed. How the Home Minister could get names of the officers concerned is also not forthcoming. We are also not happy with the Cadre Management Authority proceedings since they met and held proceedings but not as per the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal. The proceedings held by them is very bald; not speaking and without application of mind. 20. In our view, the Applicant has undergone several transfers during the short period including the transfer under the impugned order. The transfer guidelines highlights that the concerned Cadre Management Authority shall intimate transfers. The transfers shall not be premature; it shall not be made during the middle of the academic year. The transfers shall be in public interest. We do not find anything in the impugned order but see just utter violation of the transfer guidelines. 21. For the reasons narrated above, we allow this application and quash both the impugned orders dated 4.9.2008 and 24.9.2008 in so far as it relates to the Applicant and the 4th Respondent. The Applicant shall be allowed to stay during his tenure at Udupi. However, the Respondents are at liberty to transfer him only in accordance with law keeping in mind the transfer guidelines both dated 22.11.2001 and 7.7.2008." 6. From the reading of the above, it is clear that the 4th respondent herein wants to prove himself to be independent without any interference in the course of his investigation, which we strongly appreciate. The Tribunal in the order dated 9.2.2009 as extracted above have clearly specified that the impugned orders suffer from malafide and arbitrariness and the same is contrary to the guidelines but not made in public interest. 7. While so, the petitioner herein who is an incumbent to Manipal Police Station from where the 4th respondent herein was transferred contends that the impugned transfer is justified and does not suffer from arbitrariness and malafide exercise of power and at any event, the guidelines relied upon by the 4th respondent herein will not have any statutory force. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel places reliance on the following decisions: (1) M. Sankaranarayan, IAS Vs. In support of his argument, the learned Counsel places reliance on the following decisions: (1) M. Sankaranarayan, IAS Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 54 ; (2) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thiru K.S. Murugesan and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 273 ; (3) National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited Vs. Sri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 . 8. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri B. Veerappa, of course, based on the written instructions from the Police Department dated 7th March 2009, fairly submits that they do not propose to challenge the order of transfer any further, however, the Gpvernment have decided to implement the orders of transfer. 9. The letter dated 7th March 2009 reads as hereunder: Office of the Director General And Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State, Bangalore 560 001 No. CB2.92/08-09 7th March 2009 To The Government Advocate O/o Advocate General High Court Building Bangalore 560 001. Sir, Sub: W.P. No. 3906 of 2009 (KAT) on the file of the High court of Karnataka at Bangalore — Sri HD Kulkarni, Manipal PS, Udupi District/Vs/The Secretary to Government, Home Department and others. Ref: Your letter No. 47672/GA08-09, dated 13.2.2009. With reference to the above, this is to inform you that the Order dated 9.2.2009 of the Hon'ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the application No.4732/2008 is under consideration for implementation after obtaining approval of the Government as well as the approval of the Election Commission, as the Election Commission of India has announced General Elections to Lok Sabha-2009. It is requested to bring this to the kind notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka it is further requested to obtain a week's time to implement the Orders of the Hon'ble K.A.T. Yours faithfully, For Director General and Inspector General of Police." 10. Since the Government has in clear terms stated that the orders of transfer would be implemented with a week's time, we also appreciate the stand of the Government in this regard. 11. Mr. K. Prasad Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent reiterated the submissions, which were made before the Tribunal. 12. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 13. 11. Mr. K. Prasad Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent reiterated the submissions, which were made before the Tribunal. 12. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 13. Of course, it is settled law that transfers are incidental to the service conditions and it may not be always be possible to demonstrate malice in fact with full and elaborate particulars. But it is settled law that to draw reasonable inference of mala fide from the facts, which are placed before the Court, such inferences must he based on factual matrix without being based on surmises and conjectures. 14. In the instant case, the fact remains that the death of wife of 5th respondent MLA Sri Raghupathi Bhat is suspicious and the 4th respondent herein in the writ petition was investigating into the same. In this regard, the Station House Diary was summoned and the Government produced the same before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the entire factual matrix of the case came to the conclusion that the impugned transfer of 4th respondent from Manipal Police Station, Udupi District to CHESCOM, Chamarajanagar is malafide and arbitrary but supported with no public interest. It is under such circumstances, the tribunal has reasonably inferred the malafide and arbitrary exercise of power and interfered with the impugned orders of transfer transferring the 4th respondent from Manipal Police Station, Udupi District to CHESCOM, Chamarajanagar. If at all only the 5th Respondent MLA or the Government should have preferred an appeal against such finding of the tribunal, but, the 5th respondent has not chosen to prefer any appeal against the finding even though he was made party in the application before the Tribunal; on the other hand, the Government has fairly took a stand to implement the order of transfer. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the decision in the case of M. Sankaranarayan, IAS Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 54 relied upon by the petitioner will not help the case of the petitioner on the other hand, the same supports the case of the 4th respondent herein and that of the Government. 15. Again as held by the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 54 relied upon by the petitioner will not help the case of the petitioner on the other hand, the same supports the case of the 4th respondent herein and that of the Government. 15. Again as held by the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thiru K.S. Murugesan and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 273 , relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly, this Court should not interfere with the decision of the Government but to implement the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Murugesan's case will not improve the case of the petitioner. 16. In those circumstances, we do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. Therefore the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- for deliberate non-inclusion of the 5th respondent Sri Raghupathi Bhat in this proceeding.