JUDGMENT K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner, who is said to be working on the post of Office Assistant Grade-III in the office of respondents and is posted within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 at Seoni, has challenged the validity of order dated 11.4.2011 (Annexure-P/6) by which the petitioner is sought to be transferred from Seoni to Dindori. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that he is President of Recognized Service Association of M.P. Bijli Karmchari Mahasangh at Seoni City and since agitation was raised by the petitioner, a Dharna was held on account of death of one employee, before the office of respondent No. 3, demanding action against erring officials, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been shifted. It is alleged that one of the workers namely Shri Sohanlal Shamagat, Assistant Lineman expired while performing duties due to electrocution on 4.3.2011. In fact the accident took place as a result of negligence on the part of the Officer-in-charge at the relevant time. A demand was made on 8.3.2011 for initiating action against the erring officials, failing which it was stated that a Dharna would be organized on 11.3.2011. It is said that since no action was taken by the management even after lapse of 15-20 days, a peaceful Dharna was organized on 24.3.2011 and an ultimatum was given to the effect that if no action was taken against the erring officials within 24 hours, the employees shall go on strike. It is alleged that on 29.3.2011 a notice was given to the petitioner as to why his absence on 24.3.2011 should not be treated as leave without pay because of his remaining absent from duty without grant of any leave. It is alleged that an explanation was given by the petitioner but due to mala fide the order impugned was issued. I 3. The notice of the writ petition was delivered to the Standing Counsel for the respondents and a return has been filed by the respondents. It is categorically stated by respondents 1 and 2 that in fact the petitioner is working in Seoni from the year 1997. I 3. The notice of the writ petition was delivered to the Standing Counsel for the respondents and a return has been filed by the respondents. It is categorically stated by respondents 1 and 2 that in fact the petitioner is working in Seoni from the year 1997. For about 13 years the petitioner has remained in one place and taking advantage of his status in the service union, the petitioner has misbehaved with the superior officers, has created trouble in office working, physically assaulted and verbally abused the co-workers and superior officers. The entire atmosphere of the office was vitiated because of which it was deemed necessary to transfer the petitioner away from Seoni, it is contended that the petitioner was relieved on 18.4.2011. Further it is contended that on a written letter of the petitioner dated 22.3.2011, he was informed in writing vide Annexure-R/3 that the action has been initiated against the erring officials and after completing the enquiry if it is found that the supervisory staff's were irresponsible and careless in discharge of duties on account of which any incident has taken place, action would be taken against them. It was said that earlier enquiry was done by the Assistant Engineer Shri R.P. Mishra and Executive Engineer Shri A.K. Choubey but again on demand, the enquiry against the erring officials has been ordered and action will be taken against the erring persons in case, prima facie, they are found guilty of misconduct. The petitioner was informed that since such an action is being taken against the erring persons, the electricity supply to the citizen of the area may not be obstructed by remaining absent from duty. It is further contended by the respondents that on account of misconduct of the petitioner, it was being considered that a departmental enquiry be initiated against him and therefore vide charge-sheet dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure-R/4) disciplinary proceedings have been started against the petitioner, in the charge-sheet the allegations are made with respect to the misbehaviour of the petitioner with the officers of the respondents in the year 2010 and it is said that because of such misconduct the petitioner is to be punished in case the allegations are found proved. The other charge is with respect to obstructing the electricity supply to the citizens of the area because of threat of Dharna as given by the petitioner in his capacity as office bearer of the service union. It is, thus, contended that action taken by the respondents for transferring the petitioner is purely on administrative reasons and not on mala fide reasons. 4. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder and denied the averments made in the return of the respondents, contending that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is nothing but after thought as they were apprehending that the petitioner would challenge the order of transfer before this Court by filing a writ petition. It is contended that the charge of the; year 2010 has deliberately been fetched out to show that the petitioner was such an employee who was required to be transferred. Thus, it is contended that still the action of the respondents transferring the petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It is emphatically pleaded by the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of the The Management of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR 1966 SC 1283 . transfer of the petitioner because of his involvement in trade union activities is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Though It is very emphatically pleaded and contended by the petitioner that on account of mala fide, he was sought to be transferred but this Court is of the considered view that such allegations do not make out a case of mala fide exercise of power of transfer by the respondents. Saying that the petitioner is sought to be transferred only on account of his involvement in the trade union activities and raising a voice with respect to the incident of death of one of the employees in an accident, is not enough to show that power is mala fidely exercised. The respondents have not only refuted such allegations but they placed on record the documents to show that they themselves have taken steps for initiating proceedings against the erring officials and that such an action taken by them was intimated to the petitioner in his capacity of District Level President of the Employees Union. The respondents have not only refuted such allegations but they placed on record the documents to show that they themselves have taken steps for initiating proceedings against the erring officials and that such an action taken by them was intimated to the petitioner in his capacity of District Level President of the Employees Union. It is also clear from perusal of document Annexure-R/3 filed on record along with return that earlier an enquiry was conducted but some sort of demand was made, therefore, again direction to conduct an enquiry was issued on 17.3.2011. It was assured by this communication to the petitioner that action will be taken in case prima facie, a case for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the erring officials is made out. After sending this communication, there was no occasion to hold any Dharna to put pressure on the authorities unthorisedly or coerce them to take action against any of the employee whether there was a prima facie case made out for the said action or not. This being so, the allegation that the petitioner is sought to be transferred on account of mala fide, cannot be said to be proved, it is the categorical statement of the respondents in their return that not only on earlier occasion the petitioner misbehaved with the superior officers but also did not discharge his duties diligently. It is expected from every employee that he should observe the rules of discipline and should not act in any manner so as to commit a misconduct or to pull down the reputation of a particular office. This being so, it was right on the part of the respondents to ultimately take a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It cannot be said that issuance of the charge-sheet was afterthought inasmuch as the order of transfer was issued on 11.4.2011 and the charge-sheet was issued on 26.4.2011 whereas the writ petition itself was filed on 25.4.2011 of which no knowledge was to the respondents. Though there was apprehension of such an action, therefore, a caveat was filed by the respondents only to oppose any interim relief with such intention and to bring these facts in the notice of this Court Thus such allegations made by the petitioner cannot be treated as proved nor on the basis of such allegations the order of transfer of petitioner can be interfered with. 7. 7. The Apex Court in the case of The Management of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. The Workmen (supra), has held in paragraph-6 as under: 6. Having analysed the evidence in this case, we are of opinion that the finding of the Tribunal that the transfer of Veeranna is mala fide is not supported by any evidence and it is, therefore, perverse and defective in law. There is no doubt that the Banks are entitled to decide on a consideration of the necessities of banking business whether the transfer of an employee should be made to a particular branch. There is also no doubt that the management of the Bank is in the best position to judge how to distribute its employees between the different branches. We are therefore, of opinion that Industrial Tribunals should be very careful before they interfere with the orders made by the Banks in discharge of their managerial functions. It is true that if an order of transfer is made mala fide or for some ulterior purpose, like punishing an employee for his trade union activities, the Industrial Tribunals should interfere and set aside such an order of transfer, because the mala fide exercise of power is not considered to be the legal exercise of the power given by law. But the finding of mala fide should be reached by Industrial Tribunals only if there is sufficient and proper evidence in support of the finding. Such a finding should not be reached capriciously or on flimsy grounds as the Industrial Tribunal has done in the present case. This view is borne out by the decision of this Court in Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Sirajuddin, (1960) 1 Lab LJ 556 (SC). 8. The Apex Court itself has given a word of caution that Industrial Tribunals should not accept the allegation of mala fide unless there is sufficient and proper evidence in support thereof. Such a finding should not be reached capriciously or on flimsy ground, From the analysis of the evidence as produced by the petitioner in the present writ petition, it cannot be said that the action of initiating a departmental enquiry against the petitioner was with a mala fide intention and to cause prejudice against him because the order of transfer was already issued in respect of the petitioner on 11.4.2011. It is noteworthy to state here that in the State services, it has been categorically observed that if there is an intention to conduct a departmental enquiry against any employee on account of misconduct, he should be shifted from the place where the enquiry is being conducted or where the alleged misconduct is said to be committed so that he may not tamper with the evidence or influence the enquiry in any manner so that a free and fair fact finding enquiry may be conducted. There is another reason, to believe that the order of transfer was not based on mala fide because of the incident or because of the trade union activities of the petitioner. For the misconduct when the charge-sheet was issued, the petitioner could have been placed under suspension as it is within the competence of the authorities to place a person under suspension against whom the departmental enquiry is contemplating or initiated. Thus if there was any intention to harass the petitioner, he could have been placed under suspension by the respondents-authorities because of contemplating departmental enquiry. Instead of taking such harsh action against the petitioner, if he is sought to be transferred away from the place where the enquiry is being conducted against him, it cannot be said that mala fidely the petitioner is transferred. 9. This being so, in the considered opinion of this Court, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of the Management of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. The Workmen (supra), will not be applicable in the present case and it cannot be said that because of the trade union activities of the petitioner, he is sought to be transferred by the respondents. This being so, the claim made by the petitioner is misconceived. The writ petition deserves to be and is dismissed, but no order as to cost.