JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, serving as U.D.C., is assailing the transfer and posting order vide Memorandum being No. F10(29)-DM(D)/CON/09/4522-28 dated 27.7.2009, transferring the petitioner and another to the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura District, Udaipur and, also the Memo, being No. F.10(29)-DM(D)/CON/09/4996-5000 dated 2.11.2009, asking the petitioner to explain the reason for non-compliance of the Government order and non-joining to his new place of posting and further advising him to join his new place of posting immediately. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. 3. Factual background: The petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and was serving in the office of the Longtharai Valley Sub-Division, and by a Memorandum dated 23.7.2009 issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, Dhalai District, Ambassa, he was transferred and posted to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa Sub-Division with immediate effect. The office Memorandum dated 23.7.2009 is reproduced below: GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR DHALAI DISTRICT: AMBASSA MEMORANDUM A committee has been formed vide No. F.10(29)-DM(D)/CON/09/4490-4501 dated 23.7.2009 under the chairmanship of the Additional District Magistrate and Collector, Dhalai to conduct a detail enquiry and submit report on the irregularities committed by certain staffs of SDM Office, Longtharai Valley Sub-Division. In order to have an impartial enquiry the following staffs who are alleged to be involved in the financial irregularities are hereby transferred from their present place and posted to SDM Office, Ambassa with immediate effect. They all are directed to submit registers, etc., adjustment, any outstanding amount etc. under their possession immediately to their successors. The SDM, Longtharai Valley will ensure the handing over charges of the staffs latest by 24.7.2009. They will remain attached with the office of SDM office, Ambassa. To • Sri Hara Kr. Malakar, UDC, • Sri Paritosh Deb, Tehsildar, • Sri Mayaranjan Chakma, R.I. • Md. Majahar Ali, UDC, • Sri Debabrata Bhowmik, DEO, • Sri Biswajit Debbarma, JE, • Sri Muketaswar Das, Tehsildar, Sd/-(BRIJESH PANDEY) District Magistrate & Collector, Dhalai District: Ambassa 4. They will remain attached with the office of SDM office, Ambassa. To • Sri Hara Kr. Malakar, UDC, • Sri Paritosh Deb, Tehsildar, • Sri Mayaranjan Chakma, R.I. • Md. Majahar Ali, UDC, • Sri Debabrata Bhowmik, DEO, • Sri Biswajit Debbarma, JE, • Sri Muketaswar Das, Tehsildar, Sd/-(BRIJESH PANDEY) District Magistrate & Collector, Dhalai District: Ambassa 4. The office Memorandum dated 23.7.2009 is a speaking order wherein the reason for transfer and posting of the petitioner from the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Longtharai Valley Sub-Division to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa Sub-Division was to have an Impartial enquiry against the persons allegedly involved in the financial irregularities in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Longtharai Valley Sub-Division. Pursuant to the transfer order dated 23.7.2009, the petitioner had joined to his new place of posting, i.e., in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa Sub-Division, Dhalai District on 25.7.2009 by submitting a joining report and, his joining report was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa Sub-Division. The impugned office Memorandum dated 27.7.2009, transferring him to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa Sub-Division to the office of the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura District was furnished to the petitioner on 27.7.2009. Under the said impugned transfer order dated 27.7.2009, another LDC, namely Sri H.K. Malakar was also transferred to the office of the District-Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura District, Udaipur. Being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order, dated 27.7.2009, the petitioner filed a representation dated 3.8.2009 to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Revenue Department, Agartala for modifying the transfer order by allowing the petitioner to serve in his home sub-division, i.e., at Kailashahar Sub-Division, North Tripura District on the grounds that he had been out of his home sub-division for a number of years and his children were depriving from his care and also his wife was facing deplorable condition whenever his children suffer from serious illness. But no action was taken pursuant to his representation dated 3.8.2009. 5. Having no alternative, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 265 of 2009, for assailing the impugned transfer order dated 27.7.2009. But no action was taken pursuant to his representation dated 3.8.2009. 5. Having no alternative, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 265 of 2009, for assailing the impugned transfer order dated 27.7.2009. The said writ petition being WP(C) No. 265 of 2009 was finally disposed by this Court vide order dated 11.9.2009 directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura to dispose of the representation dated 3.8.2009 filed by the petitioner within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the order and till the disposal of the representation, the impugned transfer order and subsequent release order shall remain suspended. 6. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.9.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 265 of 2009, the said representation dated 3.8.2009, filed by the petitioner had been considered by the concerned authority and the petitioner had been informed under the letter of the Under Secretary, Government of Tripura being No. F.2(5)/PS/REV/2009 dated 16.9.2009, that a case of financial irregularities in the office of the Longtharai Valley Sub-Division had been reported and inquired into. After preliminary inquiry, some officials, including the petitioner had been transferred by the Government to various offices outside the District in order to facilitate full enquiry and audit for the alleged financial irregularities, and before a comprehensive decision was taken by the Government, the DM and Collector, Dhalai District had transferred the petitioner from the office of the Longtharai Valley Sub-Division to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambassa, within the same district for the purpose of his own enquiry into the alleged financial irregularities, and for taking a comprehensive view of the full matter, the Government transferred the petitioner to DM's Office, South Tripura District, Udaipur and, as such, the prayer of the petitioner for transfer to North Tripura District could not be considered at that stage. As the petitioner did not join his new place of posting, the District Magistrate and Collector, Dhalai District, Ambassa issued the impugned Memorandum dated 2-11-2009 asking the petitioner to join his new place of posting immediately and also to explain the reason for noncompliance of the Government order and non-joining to his new place of posting for a long time. Hence, this present writ petition. 7. Hence, this present writ petition. 7. In the present writ petition, the grounds, amongst other grounds for assailing the impugned transfer and posting order, are (i) as the petitioner did not admit the allegation of financial irregularities and claimed for verification in his presence, the petitioner had been transferred to the office of the DM and Collector, South Tripura District, Udaipur, (ii) the relevant file and note will show that the order of the transfer of the petitioner from the office of the SDM, Ambassa Sub-Division, Ambassa is not passed in the interest of public, the transfer and posting order had been issued with mala fide intention and (iii) the petitioner had been subjected to frequent transfer and had not given any opportunity to serve at his own sub-division. 8. As the petitioner made a strong allegation against the State-respondents that the relevant file will show that the impugned transfer order was not made in public interest and had been issued with mala fide intention, this Court in the interest of justice, had directed Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents, to make the relevant file of the Government of Tripura relating to the transfer of the petitioner, available before this Court for perusal. Accordingly, Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate made the file available before this Court for perusal. On perusal of the file, it appears that there was preliminary inquiry regarding the financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the staff of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Longtharai Valley Sub-Division where the petitioner was working as U.D.C. and submitted preliminary report dated 29.8.2009 to the District Magistrate and Collector, Dhalai District that the petitioner and others had committed the financial irregularities. As per inquiry report, so far as the petitioner was concerned, the petitioner had not deposited an amount of Rs. 41,200 which was not utilized for maintenance of type-III quarters at SDM's Office, Longtharai Valley and repairing of Chawmanu T.K. office toilet and sanitation. After such preliminary report, for holding a fair inquiry, the petitioner had been transferred vide the impugned transfer order dated 27.7.2009 to another District, i.e., DM's Office, South Tripura, Udaipur. 9. 41,200 which was not utilized for maintenance of type-III quarters at SDM's Office, Longtharai Valley and repairing of Chawmanu T.K. office toilet and sanitation. After such preliminary report, for holding a fair inquiry, the petitioner had been transferred vide the impugned transfer order dated 27.7.2009 to another District, i.e., DM's Office, South Tripura, Udaipur. 9. No doubt, it is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score; the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and without any proper justification, the court should not interfere with the order of transfer. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. The High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. Therefore, the power of judicial review of the High Court regarding the transfer and posting of an employee is circumscribed and limited in exercising only where the transfer and posting order is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions. 10. In the present case, save and except the vague allegation that the impugned transfer and posting order is vitiated by mala fide and bias, there is no material particular or reasons in the pleading to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action in issuing the impugned transfer and posting order. The Apex Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1993 SC 1236 held that the malice cannot be established on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions and also that there should be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. The relevant portion of para 7 of the AIR in Rajendra Roy case (supra) reads as follows: 7. AIR 1993 SC 1236 held that the malice cannot be established on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions and also that there should be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. The relevant portion of para 7 of the AIR in Rajendra Roy case (supra) reads as follows: 7. After considering the respective contentions of the parties, it appears to us that the appellant has not been able to substantiate that the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide against him for an oblique purpose and/or for wrecking vengeance against him because the respondent No. 2 was anxious to get rid of him and he seized the opportunity of transferring him from Delhi to Calcutta by transferring Sri Patra back to Orissa from Calcutta. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is parsed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. We are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal that the appellant has not been able to lay any firm foundation to substantiate the case of malice or mala fide against the respondents in passing the impugned order of transfer. It does not appear to us that the appellant has been moved out just to get rid of him and the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide by seizing an opportunity to transfer Shri Patra to Orissa from Calcutta. It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions. 11. The Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 held that the order of transfer is an incident of Government service. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions. 11. The Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 held that the order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority" and that the court is not an appellant authority silting in judgment over the orders of transfer and it cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority on competent to transfer. The Apex Court reiterated that the order of transfer cannot be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed with mala fides or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. In the instant case, it is not the case of petitioner that the impugned transfer order was made in violation of the statutory provisions but the only case is that the impugned transfer order was passed with mala fide and with bias. 'Bias' in common English parlance means and implies-predisposition or prejudice. The Apex Court in para 35 of SCC in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 182 held that: 35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom in the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained: If on the other hand, the allegations pertaining to bias is rather fanciful and otherwise to avoid a particular court, Tribunal or authority, question of declaring them to be unsustainable would not arise. The requirement is availability of positive and cogent evidence and it is in this context that we do record our concurrence with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. 2000 QB 451. 12. As discussed above, there is no material fact, which forms the foundation of malice in passing the impugned transfer and posting order. 12. As discussed above, there is no material fact, which forms the foundation of malice in passing the impugned transfer and posting order. Therefore, it is not possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action, from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances, in passing the impugned transfer and posting order. 13. Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further urges that there should be an elaborate inquiry before submitting the preliminary report by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Longtharai Valley Sub-Division dated 29.8.2009 that there were certain financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, which culminates to issuing the impugned transfer and posting order. This submission is not acceptable inasmuch as the prima facie satisfaction of the authority for holding an inquiry on the basis of the preliminary report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Longtharai Valley Sub-Division would be sufficient for issuing the impugned transfer order and also that very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration would be frustrated. The Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Janardhan Debanath and Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 245 held that the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the report about the occurrence would be sufficient for transferring the concerned employee for holding an inquiry to find out the true fact, and an elaborate inquiry is not required to be held before issuing the transfer order. Para 14 of the SCC in Janardhan Debanath case (supra) reads as follows: The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that there is no material in the present writ petition which calls for interference with the impugned transfer and posting order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed