Judgment Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.C. Tiwari, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is working as a Registrar Kanoongo at Tehsil Almora. It transpires that some complaint was made by the members of the Bar Association, Almora against the petitioner with regard to some incident. The District Magistrate, on the basis of the said complaint, and taking a serious view in the matter, issued an order, transferring the petitioner on administrative grounds. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said transfer order, has filed the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed today which is taken on record in which the respondents admit that based on a complaint dated 9th April, 2010 made by the Bar Association, Almora, the District Magistrate took a strict view and transferred the petitioner on administrative grounds. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have alleged that the transfer of the petitioner was made in order to avoid any untoward incident. 4. Transfer on administrative grounds is not bad in law and a government employee can be transferred on exigency of service either in public interest or on administrative grounds. But when the respondents chose to transfer its employee on administrative grounds, the respondents are required to comply with their own policy decision. One such policy decision dated 5th June, 2008 was issued by the Govt. of Uttarakhand indicating the parameters in which an employee could be transferred on administrative grounds, namely:- (1) If there was a serious complaint against the person sought to be transferred; or (2) If the person sought to be transferred had misbehaved with superior officers; or (3) If the person sought to be transferred had not taken any interest in the work. 5. Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid policy further stipulated that transfer on administrative grounds should not be effected on motivated complaints nor should a transfer be ordered in a casual manner and that the competent authority seeking to effect the transfer on administrative grounds was required to verify and confirm the existence as well as the truthfulness of the aforesaid grounds of transfer and only after arriving at and recording its satisfaction about the existence and truthfulness of the grounds should the transfer be effected. 6. 6. This Government policy of 5th June, 2008 was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Damyanti Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, 2008 (2) U.D., 517, wherein the Court after considering all aspects of the matter held as under:- “We, while upholding the aforesaid view, substitute our own opinion by laying down that even though a transfer order on administrative ground per se is not bad in law, no person can be transferred on an administrative ground unless before issuing the transfer order, the Authority competent to transfer has arrived at and recorded his satisfaction, upon due verification and confirmation, about the existence and truthfulness of anyone of the three factors / grounds / considerations warranting the transfer of the person concerned.” 7. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court and, in the light of the Government policy dated 5th June, 2008, the Court finds from a perusal of the transfer order as well as from a perusal of the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate that there has been a complete non-application of the mind by the authority concerned. Merely because the members of the Bar Association of Almora made a complaint, the District Magistrate cannot take an escape route and transfer the petitioner in order to appease the members of the Bar Association. Neither the impugned order nor the counter affidavit indicates that the District Magistrate recorded his satisfaction upon due verification and confirmation about the existence and truthfulness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. In the absence of recording any satisfaction, the Court finds that the transfer order on administrative grounds was unwarranted and against the policy framed by the Government. No doubt, a policy framed by the Government has no statutory flavour but, nonetheless, it should be adhered as far as possible by the respondents themselves and to that extent it is binding on all the authorities of the State Govt. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the transfer order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.