Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed, as a Health Inspector, on 28.10.1986. The petitioner has been performing his duties without any blemish. The services rendered by the petitioner had been appreciated by way of the Best Health Inspector Award given to him, in respect of Nagapattinam District. While so, the first respondent had issued the impugned transfer order, vide his proceedings, dated 18.1.2012, transferring the petitioner from Thalaignayar in Nagapattinam District to Saidapet, in Chennai. 3. It has been further stated that the said proceedings had been passed by the first respondent for political reasons. The transfer order had been issued, by the first respondent, not on administrative grounds. The said proceedings had been motivated, as it is based on political reasons. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 18.1.2012, is arbitrary and illegal and it is punitive in nature. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel for the respondents had placed before this Court the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nagapattinam, dated 18.6.2012. From the said proceedings, it is clear that the transfer of the petitioner was based on certain serious allegations levelled against him. It is also clear that the impugned proceedings had been issued, by the first respondent, without any charges having been framed and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. It is a well settled position in law that, under ordinary circumstances, the impugned orders of transfer would not be interfered with, by the Courts concerned, if such orders had been passed purely on administrative grounds, as part of the service conditions. However, the transfer orders could be set aside, if they had been issued without jurisdiction, or for mala fide reasons, or when the transfer is not on administrative grounds, but based on extraneous considerations. 6. In the present case, it is clear that the impugned proceedings had been issued, by the first respondent, due to the fact that certain allegations had been levelled against the petitioner. However, it is an admitted fact that no charges had been levelled against the petitioner and no enquiry had been conducted based on such charges. 6. In the present case, it is clear that the impugned proceedings had been issued, by the first respondent, due to the fact that certain allegations had been levelled against the petitioner. However, it is an admitted fact that no charges had been levelled against the petitioner and no enquiry had been conducted based on such charges. As such, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 18.1.2012, is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, if so advised, based on the charges levelled against him, in the manner known to law. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.