Judgment A.K. Shrivastva. J. ( 1. ) The validity of the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 29.4.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench Camp at Gwalior in T.A.No. 16/2009 has been put to question by petitioner by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Consitution of India. ( 2. ) Although, today the matter has been listed for admission, however learned counsel for the parties submit that petition itself be heard finally. Eventually, prayer is accepted and the petition is heard finally. ( 3. ) The petitioner, who is serving on the post of Telephone Operator Assistant (Phones) was serving on the said post at Biaora. It is not disputed that vide order dated 7.8.08 he was transferred from Biaora to Guna. It is also not disputed that immediately after his joining at Guna on 10.9.08 viz within a span of one month only, he has been again transferred from Guna to Rajgarh. Vehemently, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that transferring the petitioner from Guna to Rajgarh is nothing but politically motivated and in that regard he has invited our attention to transfer order Annexure P/2 in which it has been specifically mentioned that on the anvil of direction/instmction issued by concerned Minister the transfer order has been effected. Hence, it has been put-forth by learned counsel that the order of transfer of the petitioner which was not interfered with by the Tribunal, deserves to be quashed. ( 4. ) Per-contra Shri Bhargava learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order and by inviting our attention to Annexure R/1 and R/2 has submitted that petitioner being a politically motivated person, has got himself transferred and in that regard he has invited my attention to letter dated 12/6/2008 which has been written to Shri Pramod Mahajan, Telecommunication Minister, Union of India, New Delhi. ( 5. ) The argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents at the first blush appears to be quite attractive however on deeper scrutiny, found to be devoid of substance and reasons. ( 5. ) The argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents at the first blush appears to be quite attractive however on deeper scrutiny, found to be devoid of substance and reasons. Firstly, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the said Union Minister Shri Pramod Mahajan breathed his last somewhere in the year 2004 and therefore sending him any letter on 12/6/2008 appears to be some mischievous act and therefore the said letter cannot be said to be a genuine letter. However, the said letter has not been sent by the petitioner but has been sent by Jiladhyakash Bhajpa Vyapari Prakoshta Ashok Nagar although the name of petitioner has been referred in this letter, but it cannot be said that petitioner insisted the said Cell to correspond with the Minister who is already dead. Secondly, even if the argument of learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, it would only mean that on account of malice and because the petitioner approached the Minister concerned he has been transferred. According to us in that case the impugned order would amount to cast a stigma and by way of punishment he has been transferred. ( 6. ) Hence, this petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 29/4/2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench Camp at Gwalior in T.A.No. 16/2009 (Shiv Veer Singh Rathore v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and two others) is hereby quashed. The transfer order of petitioner dated 10/9/2008 Annexure P/2 issued by respondent No.2 and consequential orders of relieving him Annexure P/3 and P/4 dated 11.9.08 and 12/9/2008 are also stand quashed. The petition is allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000.00 if pre-certified.