JUDGMENT Ghulam Mohammed, J. 1. The first respondent, while working as Technician-III, was transferred from Lallaguda, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division to Guntakal on administrative grounds vide proceedings dated 9.2.2010, issued by the 4th petitioner. Challenging the said proceedings, he filed OA No.293 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), which in turn allowed the same on 13.7.2010 by setting aside the said proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the first respondent. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the O.A. as the first respondent involved in a criminal case and that he was transferred on administrative grounds. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Sri Janardhan Debanath, 2004 (3) ALD 34 (SC) = 2004 (2) SLR 15 (SC) and also the judgment of this Court in General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. Syed Abdul Kareem, 2010 (3) ALD 650 (DB) = 2010(4) ALT 394 (DB). He submitted that if the first respondent makes an application, the same will be considered by the petitioners concerned. 4. The Tribunal held in the order impugned that though the petitioners mentioned that the order of transfer was on administrative grounds, but it occurred only at the request of the General Secretary, SCRMU, and that the petitioners without giving any reasonable opportunity and without considering the health condition and family problems of the first respondent, straightaway passed the transfer order. However, in a catena of decisions it was held that the transfer of employee is an incidence of service and it is well settled that it should not be interfered with unless mala fidies are proved. Apart from that, the Apex Court in Union of India's case (supra), held that if the transfer order is passed in public interest, it could not have been interfered with. Therefore, we are of the view that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned. Apart from that, the Apex Court in Union of India's case (supra), held that if the transfer order is passed in public interest, it could not have been interfered with. Therefore, we are of the view that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned. It is open to the first respondent to submit an application to the petitioners concerned ventilating his grievance within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the petitioners shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs.