Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the records. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 6.9.2012 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Provincial Division, Allahabad to Sonbhadra Circle while working as Junior Engineer. The name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 3 in the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer has been made on the basis of a complaint made by a sitting M.L.A. of ruling party Sri Satya Veer Singh belonging to different constituency. There is no administrative reason or public interest involved in the impugned order and the same has been passed on political as well as on extraneous consideration. 4. Learned Standing Counsel was directed to seek instructions in the matter. 5. Mr. Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions and the relevant record submits that Sri Satya Veer Singh, M.L.A. had made a complaint in August, 2012 alleging therein that the petitioner is involved in corruption and his public dealing is not upto mark. Considering the said complaint the Minister concerned had directed for transfer of the petitioner. It was in pursuance of the said direction that the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order. 6. Submission is that there are administrative reasons for transfer of petitioner. 7. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner in response to the submissions made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that it is totally wrong to say that the petitioner is in any manner guilty of the allegations made in the said complaint. The work and conduct of the petitioner has always been to the best satisfaction of the concerning higher authorities. There is no enquiry or any other adverse material pending against the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in colourable exercise of power at the behest of sitting M.L.A. without ascertaining the allegations made in the alleged complaint. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. There is no enquiry or any other adverse material pending against the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in colourable exercise of power at the behest of sitting M.L.A. without ascertaining the allegations made in the alleged complaint. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is the admitted position that the impugned transfer of petitioner has been made on the basis of a complaint made by a sitting M.L.A. of the ruling party on which the concerning Minister had directed for transfer of petitioner. It is to be noted that in the said complaint the allegation was that the petitioner was involved in corruption and his public dealing was not proper. However, the competent authority or the concerning higher authority neither made any effort nor held any enquiry to ascertain the aforesaid allegations made in the said complaint. The transfer of the petitioner has been made straightway considering the said complaint made by the sitting M.L.A. 11. I am of the view that this cannot be permitted as it would amount to undue interference by political persons in the working of the Government servants. In case any complaint was made by any person including a sitting M.L.A., the same should have been first inquired into and efforts should have been made to ascertain the allegations made in the said complaint. It was only thereafter that the authorities concerned could have transferred the petitioner in case it was so required. In the present case since no effort was made to ascertain the allegation made in the said complaint as such I am of the opinion that the order impugned has been passed on extraneous consideration which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 12. The writ petition as such is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 6.9.2012 (Annexure-1) so far as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Provincial Division, Allahabad. 13. However liberty is given to the opposite parties to ascertain the alleged complaint made by the sitting M.L.A. and find out the allegations made therein. In case the allegations are found true by holding an enquiry to the satisfaction of the concerning authority, the opposite party no. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Provincial Division, Allahabad. 13. However liberty is given to the opposite parties to ascertain the alleged complaint made by the sitting M.L.A. and find out the allegations made therein. In case the allegations are found true by holding an enquiry to the satisfaction of the concerning authority, the opposite party no. 2 shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order of transfer of the petitioner in case it is so required in the exigency of administrative work. _____________