JUDGMENT : With consent the matter is heard finally. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 22-12-2010; whereby, petitioner, an Inspector, Weights and Measures, has been transferred in same capacity from district Bhopal to district Tikamgarh. The petitioner challenges the order of his transfer on two counts. Firstly, it is challenged on the ground that petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer. It is contended that it was only on 15-06-2010 that the petitioner was transferred from Betul to Bhopal in administrative exigency and within six months of his stay at Bhopal is again being transferred from Bhopal to Tikamgarh in administrative exigency. Secondly, it is urged that though the order of transfer is nomenclature as on administrative ground it suffers from colourable exercise of power. While propitiating first submission it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is within the power of the respondents/State to transfer its employees from one place to another in exigency of service because the transfer is not a condition but an incident of service. It is submitted that the power of transfer should not be misused by the respondents and in a case where an employee is required to be transferred frequently, it must be for cogent reason. It is contended that the reason assigned by the respondents for transferring the petitioner from Bhopal to Tikamgarh within a period of six months though being administrative, however, the return filed by the respondents reflects that it is on the basis of complaint lodged against the petitioner at the behest of a District Head of a particular political party. Placing reliance on Annexure-R/1, which is a document annexed by the respondents along with the letter dated 28-01-2011, it is contended by the petitioner that because the petitioner has taken action against the Sweat-meat traders he has been made scape-goat on the basis of complaint lodged by the District Head of a political party. It is contended that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner on the basis of such complaint is not a symbol of good governance as it reflects interference by the political party in day to day administration of the State. It is urged that such an action is impermissible in law and, therefore, the order of transfer be quashed. It is urged that such an action is impermissible in law and, therefore, the order of transfer be quashed. In respect of the complaint lodged against the petitioner on the basis whereof the petitioner has been transferred it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action initiated by the petitioner was in response to the direction issued by the Controller, Weights and Measures, Bhopal on 06-10-2010(Annexure- P/7) and the petitioner on the basis of the same has registered cases against all such traders, who were found committing breach of law. It is contended that an honest discharge of duty cannot be termed as a misconduct and cannot be a foundation for transferring the petitioner. Respondents on being noticed have filed the return whereby it is not disputed that the petitioner was transferred within six months on the basis of complaint lodged against him. In paragraph 2 of the return it is stated that "The transfer of the petitioner is on account of complaints received by the Department and also the same is strictly in accordance with clause 5 & 9.5 of the transfer policy of the State Govt. for the year 2010-11. That on 28-1-11 the Deptt. Of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection informed the Dy. Controller, Weight and Measure that the aforesaid are the reason for transferring the petitioner from Bhopal to Tikamgarh. A copy of letter dated 28-1-10 (Correct date is 28-1-11) along with the note sheet and the relevant complaints including the aforesaid policy is being filed herewith as Annexure-R/1." Respondents have relied upon the judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in R. S. Choudhary v. State of M.P.; ILR 2007 MP 1329, and Masood Ahamed v. State of U.P. & others; (2007) 8 SCC 150 to substantiate the proposition that a government servant can be transferred at the instance of public representatives. The principle of law laid down by these judgments cannot be disputed. However, the same are not attracted in present case for the reasons which follows. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of transfer of the petitioner is not sustainable. Firstly, the petitioner who was transferred from Betul to Bhopal in June, 2010 could not have been shunted within a period of six months unless for good reasons. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of transfer of the petitioner is not sustainable. Firstly, the petitioner who was transferred from Betul to Bhopal in June, 2010 could not have been shunted within a period of six months unless for good reasons. The reason assigned by the respondents in the return is that there was a complaint lodged against the petitioner by one Alok Sharma, a district head of a political party. It appears from the note sheet annexed along with Annexure-R/1 that the complaint was taken into consideration by the State Minister (independent charge), Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, and without further inquiring into the matter as to whether the petitioner while discharging his duty has committed any misconduct recorded a note that there are serious allegations against the petitioner, directed the authorities to transfer the petitioner. This action on the part of the functionaries of the State is not appreciable and is not in the spirit of democratic principles. If there are allegations of misconduct against the petitioner, the competent authority is always at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceeding against such erring government servant. On the contrary Annexure-P/7 annexed along with the rejoinder reflects that the petitioner was carrying out his statutory duty as Inspector, Weight and Measure, in pursuance to the direction issued by the Controller, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Bhopal. In the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be a foundation for transferring an employee from one place to another. Furthermore, except a bald complaint lodged by the district head of a political party no other material is brought on record to justify that the petitioner derelicted in his duty. In view whereof the order of transfer being apparently infested with malice cannot be given the stamp of approval. It is accordingly quashed. In the result, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. In the given facts of present case the petitioner would be entitled for cost of the petition Rs. 2,500/-.