ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The petitioners are stated to be District Programme Officers employed in the Bihar Education Service posted at Samastipur. They are aggrieved by the order dated 15.2.2012 of the Regional Deputy Director of Education calling for immediate report by special messenger for allocation of alternative duties to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that their administrative authority is the District Education Officer who alone is competent to allot duties to them. The impugned order is not bona fide in the interest of work but is propelled by developments that took place at a District level meeting chaired by the District Magistrate on 15.2.2012. The Officers walked out enmasse in protest against the unsavory conduct of the District Magistrate. The joint representation submitted inter alia before the Chief Secretary of the State at Annexure-4, amply reflects what transpired. The impugned order has been issued in that background. Even if the Regional Deputy Director of Education is an officer superior in rank to the District Education Officer, the recitals in the order make it manifest that it is not issued by independent application of mind by the Education Department, but at the behest of the District Magistrate. The order is quite simply bad for abdication of jurisdiction. The haste displayed in calling for a report, the same day by a special messenger is sufficient indication and reflection that it is the result of the ire of the District Magistrate and not any administrative need. 4. The submission thus is that the order is arbitrary, suffers gravely in law and is not in proper exercise of public powers. 5. Counsel for the State submits that the writ petition discloses no cause of action. The petitioners have not even been transferred outside the District of Samastipur. It is a table transfer. The Regional Deputy Director is fully competent to do so. Utilization of personnel at locations is the discretion of the administrator. 6. To the extent that any challenge may be laid on the ground of what is euphemistically described as table transfer, the Court is not inclined to interfere. But the writ application is raising a much more important question with regard to good administration. This shall not be construed as any confirmation by the Court of the allegations being made by the petitioners. But the writ application is raising a much more important question with regard to good administration. This shall not be construed as any confirmation by the Court of the allegations being made by the petitioners. The Court was inclined to call upon the respondents to file a counter affidavit but purposefully refrains from the same as the developments to the mind of the Court relate at this stage more to the administrative domain. 7. Discipline and comity are the hallmarks of good administration and any occurrence not befitting the same will undoubtedly have its fall out on good administration. 8. There can be two opinions that the Regional Deputy Director is competent to issue the order being superior in rank to the District Education Officer. But the order dated 15.2.2012 from its recital satisfies the Court that it is not by independent application of mind but suffers gravely from abdication of jurisdiction in favour of the District Magistrate. The haste displayed in calling for a report through the special messenger the same day to effect table transfer displays a conduct not in the regular course of administration. Such an administrative matter cannot have urgency of this nature as reflected in the impugned order. 9. The matter is appropriately referred to the Chief Secretary of the State. He is expected to enquire into the matter himself. The enquiry naturally shall include recording the statements of the persons who are authors of the representation at Annexure-4. Their statements shall be recorded in presence of the District Magistrate. Any queries by the Chief Secretary shall be made from the District Magistrate or the authors of the letter in presence of each other with an opportunity of defence to both. Thus the Court considers this in the interest of the administration itself. 10. The impugned order could easily have been set aside today on ground of abdication of the jurisdiction from recitals contained in the order itself. But since the writ petition appears to be raising more serious issues of good administration, the Court only directs that it shall be kept in abeyance till fresh appropriate orders are passed by the appropriate authority of the State. 11. The writ application stands disposed.