Judgment ( 1. ) THE present application has been filed by the applicant praying for similar order as it has been passed by a Division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 138/2009 (Ku. Shashi kanta Kesri vs. State of M. P. and another ). ( 2. ) SHRI Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in a similar case in Writ Appeal No. 138/2009 (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has allowed the said writ appeal against the order passed by learned single Judge and a direction has been given to the respondents to pass an appropriate order as is required in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted by him that the Division Bench has ultimately held that there was no justification for transfer of the said petitioner and on this ground the writ appeal has been allowed. ( 3. ) WE have perused the order on which reliance is placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this application. The order passed in W. A. No. 138/2009 (supra) in paragraph-5, reads as under:- "shri Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the state submitted number of reasons to justify the transfer of the appellant From Anooppur to Sidhi but, in our opinion, the oral submissions cannot form part of the order dated 31. 1. 2009. " It is gathered from the said order that the justification which was advanced for transfer was not accepted by the said Division Bench and accordingly the order of transfer was quashed. ( 4. ) ON the other hand, in the present case, the second paragraph of the order passed by learned single Judge in writ Petition No. 1550/2009 (S) decided on 10. 2. 2009, which was filed by the present appellant against the order of her transfer, reads as under:- ". . . . . . It is emphasised by Shri Alok Pathak, learned govt. Advocate that inspite of the report submitted by the Collector, Commissioner, the disciplinary authority is still entitled to proceed with the inquiry and if he can to proceed with the inquiry then the transfer of the petitioner after revocation of the suspension to facilitate proper inquiry does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of this petition. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of this petition. " An analysis of the aforesaid reproduction of the order passed by learned single reveals that a justification which was advanced on behalf of the State was accepted by the learned single Judge that after revocation of suspension the authorities are empowered to proceed with the inquiry and transfer of the petitioner after revocation of the suspension to facilitate proper inquiry does not warrant any interference. ( 5. ) IN view of the aforesaid, a bare reading of the order passed in W. A. No. 138/2009 (supra) on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner itself indicates that oral justification which was given to support the transfer order was not accepted by the said Division Bench. Furthermore, what was the said justification for transfer is also not appearing in the order dated 13. 2. 2009 passed in w. A. No. 138/2009 (supra) but, on the contrary, in the case of present appellant, there was a justification given before the learned single Judge for transfer of the petitioner to facilitate proper inquiry which was accepted by the learned single judge. Moreover, the order dated 10. 2. 2009 passed by learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1551/2009 (S) against which the said W. A. No. 138/2009 was preferred has not been placed on record so that we could have found whether in that case the learned single Judge accepted the reason explained to him by the State for transferring the said writ-petitioner during the enquiry. Thus, the order passed by another division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 138/2009 is quite distinguishable. ( 6. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we perceive no merit in the present application. No case for review is made out. The present application accordingly stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.