JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petitions. 2. This order shall also dispose of connected Writ Petition No. 979 (SB) of 2013 as both these petitions originate in identical facts connected with transfer orders passed as a result of controversies regarding alleged irregularities in construction of residential buildings of subordinate Court, Mau. 3. Writ Petition No. 228 (SB) of 2013 has been filed for quashment of: (i) the order/letter No. 9291-94/QF-A/001 dated 5.2.2013 whereby the petitioner (Yogendra Giri) who was working as Project Engineer, U.P. Processing and Construction Cooperative Federation Limited (for short, ‘PACFED’), Construction Division, Azamgarh, has been attached to Headquarters and (ii) order/letter No. 9295-99/QF-A-001 dated 5.2.2013 by which respondent No. 3 (Vinay Kumar Singh) who was working as Assistant Engineer has been transferred to PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh, and has been given the designation of Project Engineer in place of the petitioner. 4. It appears that some letter was written by one Sri Surendra Prasad Mishra, Member of Legislative Assembly to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to hold inquiry. Thus, an inquiry was held by Additional Registrar (Admn.) and thereafter vide order dated 30.3.2011, the petitioner was removed from the civil construction work, Azamgarh, and was attached to PACFED Headquarters vide order dated 19.4.2011 passed by respondent No. 2. The said orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 812 (SB) of 2011 by the petitioner and the Court vide order dated 3.5.2011 stayed the operation of order dated 30.3.2011. Thus the petitioner was allowed to function as Project Engineer, PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh. 5. However, according to the petitioner, despite the orders of this Court, the respondents tried to dislodge him from the post of Project Engineer and he was transferred to Varanasi vide order dated 10.7.2012 which was also quashed by this Court vide the order dated 19.7.2012 in Writ Petition No. 1043(SB) of 2012. 6. As per further averments, one M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises, who was allotted contract of construction work by one Anil Pandey, Assistant Engineer, had not done the work satisfactorily and up to the mark, as such vide order dated 28.2.2012, the petitioner constituted a three member team to conduct inquiry and submit report, which was submitted on 3.3.2012 and a request was made to make deduction from the bills of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises. On 3.3.2012 itself, the petitioner passed order for recovery of Rs. 9,56,118=00 from the bills of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises and the contract was given to M/s. Ma Pitambara Traders on 4.3.2012. When Sri Vinod Tiwari, proprietor of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises was proceeded against for recovery, on 19.10.2012, he wrote a letter to the learned District Judge, Mau, who consequent thereupon called for comments of the petitioner and the petitioner vide letter dated 26.10.2012 apprised correct facts to the learned District Judge, Mau. In the meantime, recovery was made from the bills of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises and further a cash amount of Rs. 2,71,759=00 was also deposited by the proprietor of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises. The amount so realized was deposited in the account of PACFED on 3.11.2012. 7. According to the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Pandey and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer respectively had committed financial irregularities in making payment to M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises and before the recovery proceeding was initiated against M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises, on being verified, even the bills submitted by this company were found to be tampered. The said bills were tried to be cleared in the name of M/s. Raj Kishore Singh. As such, the petitioner wrote letter dated 5.11.2012 to the Managing Director to take necessary action against Anil Kumar Pandey and Anil Kumar Yadav. 8. According to the petitioner, being aggrieved by recovery proceedings initiated against M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises, Sri Vinod Tiwari, the proprietor, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registering FIR against the petitioner and vide the order dated 5.12.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 18.12.2012 at Case Crime No. 1165 of 2012 under Section 409, 419, 429 and 421 IPC at police station Kotwali Mau, district Mau. 9. Being annoyed with the petitioner, Sri Vinod Tiwari, the proprietor of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises also moved a complaint on administrative side before the Managing Director on 24.12.2012 requesting him to remove the petitioner from his post. The complaint addressed to the Managing Director was forwarded by Sri Om Prakash, the Minister, Land Development & Water Resources and Parti Bhumi Vikas Department on 28.12.2012 to the Cooperative Minister. The complaint addressed to the Managing Director was forwarded by Sri Om Prakash, the Minister, Land Development & Water Resources and Parti Bhumi Vikas Department on 28.12.2012 to the Cooperative Minister. Sri Vinod Tiwari, proprietor of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises also made a direct complaint of the even date to the Managing Director requesting for removal of the petitioner from his post. 10. The aforesaid complaint was sent by the Managing Director to the Chief General Manager and the Chief General Manager vide the order dated 26.12.2012 directed Sri Shyam Chandra Chaudhary, Executive Engineer, PACFED Construction Division, Faizabad, to inquire into the complaint. 11. Thereafter Sri Shyam Chandra Chaudhary issued notice dated 31.12.2012 to the petitioner to submit the details as mentioned in the notice. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted all the documents before Sri Shyam Chandra Chaudhary. However, that inquiry was later handed over to another Executive Engineer. 12. Thereafter the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 341 of 2013 for quashing of the FIR and stay of his arrest at Allahabad and the Division Bench of this Court passed the order dated 11.1.2013 staying the arrest of the petitioner till submission of report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. 13. The petitioner apprised the Managing Director regarding the financial irregularities committed by Anil Kumar Pandey and Anil Kumar Yadav, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer in making payment to M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises. He also apprised that for completing the work, another contractor M/s. Ma Pitambara Traders was given contract on 4.3.2012 and the company also made supply on 17.3.2012. 14. In the meantime, vide order/letter No. 9291-94/QF-A/001 dated 5.2.2013, the petitioner who was working as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Division, Azamgarh was attached to Headquarters and vide order/letter No. 9295-99/QF-A-001 dated 5.2.2013 respondent No. 3 who was working as Assistant Engineer was transferred to PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh and given designation of Project Engineer in place of the petitioner. 15. In the meantime, vide order/letter No. 9291-94/QF-A/001 dated 5.2.2013, the petitioner who was working as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Division, Azamgarh was attached to Headquarters and vide order/letter No. 9295-99/QF-A-001 dated 5.2.2013 respondent No. 3 who was working as Assistant Engineer was transferred to PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh and given designation of Project Engineer in place of the petitioner. 15. According to the petitioner, the order/letter No. 9291-94/QF-A/001 dated 5.2.2013 whereby the petitioner who was working as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Division, Azamgarh has been attached to Headquarters and the order/letter No. 9295-99/QF-A-001 dated 5.2.2013 by which respondent No. 3 who was working as Assistant Engineer has been transferred to PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh and has been given designation of Project Engineer in place of the petitioner are totally illegal and arbitrary, and have been passed with mala fide intention and for extraneous consideration besides being and also on the behest of the proprietor of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises. It is so that they can make a way for posting of respondent No. 3 on the post of Project Engineer despite that fact that Sri Vinay Kumar Singh is only an Assistant Engineer. The petitioner submits that only on the basis of complaint made by the proprietor of M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises i.e. the contractor, the petitioner could not have been attached to the PACFED Headquarters. 16. The petitioner further submits that in case any inquiry is to be conducted the same can be conducted in accordance with law and only on the ground of pending inquiry, the petitioner cannot be transferred to the PACFED Headquarters. 17. It also appears that respondent No. 3 who is a resident of district Azamgarh has managed to get himself posted on the post of Project Engineer in PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh despite the fact that he was not holding the post of Project Engineer, Basti. 18. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 is Assistant Engineer and is much junior to the petitioner, having been appointed only in the year 2010 as such. But he has been given the charge of Project Engineer by dislodging the petitioner from his post. 19. It is also submitted that in the department, only two or three regular Project Engineers are working, and against other posts of Project Engineers, only Assistant Engineers are working as in-charge Project Engineers. 20. But he has been given the charge of Project Engineer by dislodging the petitioner from his post. 19. It is also submitted that in the department, only two or three regular Project Engineers are working, and against other posts of Project Engineers, only Assistant Engineers are working as in-charge Project Engineers. 20. In the seniority list, name of the petitioner is at serial No. 11 and his date of absorption as Assistant Engineer (civil) is 14.12.2010. Some of the Assistant Engineers (civil) mentioned at serial No. 13,14,15,16,17,19,20,24 and 26 although being junior to the petitioner are working as in-charge Project Engineers. 21. Respondent No. 3 who is at serial No. 18 in the seniority list was never appointed or promoted as in-charge Project Engineer and vide impugned order he has been posted in place of the petitioner with designation of Project Engineer which is absolutely illegal. Thus, he could not be given the designation of Project Engineer. The action of respondents is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. It is also a contention of the petitioner that the respondents are annoyed for the reason that the petitioner indulged in litigation by filing writ petition No. 812 (S/B) of 2011 wherein this Court stayed the operation of the transfer order whereby the civil construction work had been withdrawn from him, and when the petitioner was transferred to Varanasi Division and in his place brother of an M.L.A. was adjusted, he filed Writ Petition No. 1043 (S/B) of 2012. This Court also quashed the order of transfer and the entire action of the respondents was held to be actuated with mala fide. 23. It is thus pleaded that the impugned order has been passed only in colourable exercise of power just in order to accommodate respondent No. 3 on the post of Project Engineer, PACFED Construction Division, Azamgarh. 24. In this background, the petitioner has prayed that if the order/letter No. 9291-94/QF-A/001 dated 5.2.2013 and the order/letter No. 9295-99/QF-A-001 dated 5.2.2013 are not stayed and the respondents are not directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Project Engineer, Construction Division, Azamgarh, the petitioner will suffer a manifest and an irreparable injury. 25. 24. In this background, the petitioner has prayed that if the order/letter No. 9291-94/QF-A/001 dated 5.2.2013 and the order/letter No. 9295-99/QF-A-001 dated 5.2.2013 are not stayed and the respondents are not directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Project Engineer, Construction Division, Azamgarh, the petitioner will suffer a manifest and an irreparable injury. 25. vide para 16 of writ petition it appears that in respect of controversy regarding use of sub standard material in the construction of residential buildings of subordinate Court, Mau, an enquiry team was constituted by the petitioner himself. The enquiry team comprising three members, submitted report on 3.3.2012 vide Annexure-14. The report, being in Hindi, is reproduced as: fujh{k.k vk[;k U;kf;d ifjlj esa pkj ux vkokl tuin]& iSdQsM iz[k.M vktex<+ ds dk;kZy; i=kad eseks fn0&28-02-2012 ds vuqikyu esa vkt fnukad&03-03-2012 dks desVh ds lnL;ksa ds lkFk tuin] esa djk;s tk jgs U;kf;d ifjlj esa VkbZi&4 ds pkj ux vkokl ij vkiwfrZ dh xbZ Qsfczds'ku dk fujh{k.k tkap fd;k x;k A tkap vk[;k gS & 1- Qsfczds'ku lkexzh esa tksM+s x;s lHkh tksM+ lgh tsM&lsD'ku foUMks ij vkbZ0,l0vkbZ0 ugha ik;s x;sA 4 o Vkoj cksYV cgqr gh ?kfV;k fdLe ds vkSj ekud ds vuqlkj ugha ik;s x;sA 5- lHkh Qsfczds’ku lkexzh ij jsM vkDlkbZM dh ysi ugha dh x;h FkhA 6- ;g Hkh irk pyk gS fd es0 vkfn 'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst dh QeZ fdlh Hkh izdkj ds Qsfczds'ku dk fuekZ.k ugha djrh rFkk NksVs&NksVs QsfczdsVj ls ysdj lIykbZ fd;s FksA 7- tsM lsD'ku foUMks esa 10 ,e0,e0 ckj dh txg 8 ,e0,e0 ckj yx;k x;k gSA laLFkkfgr esa Qsfczds'ku dk lkexzh cny dj ds vuq:i cuok;k tkuk t:jh gSA ftlls laLFkk dh Nfo /kwfey u gksA blfy, laLFkk ds fgr esa Qsfczds'ku dh lkexzh dk Hkqxrku esa vkfn 'kfDr ds }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;ksZa ds Hkqxrku ls dVkSrh djus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA 26. However, on complaint of contractor against the petitioner, U.P. Processing and Construction Cooperative Federation Limited to which the petitioner belongs, held an independent enquiry through one Ajeet Singh, Executive Engineer. The report was submitted vide Annexure-7 on 2.3.2013. However, on complaint of contractor against the petitioner, U.P. Processing and Construction Cooperative Federation Limited to which the petitioner belongs, held an independent enquiry through one Ajeet Singh, Executive Engineer. The report was submitted vide Annexure-7 on 2.3.2013. The relevant portion of the report which is also in Hindi, is reproduced as: ^^ttf'ki dkyksuh ds fuekZ.k gsrq Vkbi &4 vkokl ds fuekZ.k gsrq Qsczhds'ku@lkexzh dh vkiwfrZ fnukad 11-12-2012 ls 27-12-2012 rd Jh vfuy ;kno voj vfHk;Urk }kjk izkIr dh x;h ftldk Hkqxrku ifj;kstuk vfHk;Urk }kjk fnukad 27-02-2012 dks fd;k x;k gSA ¼i=koyh ist la0&20½ ifj;kstuk vfHk;Urk Jh fxfj vktex<+ }kjk xfBr tkap desVh us fnukad 03-03-2012 dks esllZ vkfn'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst }kjk vkiwfrZr lkeku dks eku ds vuq:i u gksuk crk;k mlds mijkUr ifj;kstuk vfHk;Urk Jh ;ksxsUnz fxfj }kjk fnukad 03-03-2012 dks mDr gsrq Hkqxrku fd x;h /kujkf'k :0 956118-00 dks esllZ vkfn'kfDr b.Vjkizkbtst ds vkxkeh fcy ls fjdojh dk vkns'k fuxZr fd;k x;kA ¼i=koyh ist la0&71½ tc ifj;kstuk vfHk;Urk }kjk fjdojh dk fu.kZ; ys fy;k x;k rks esllZ vkfn'kfDRk ds lHkh fcyksa dk Hkqxrku jksd dj mDr /kujkf'k dh dVkSrh dh tkuh pkfg, FkhA fdUrq esllZ vkfn'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst dks fnukad 28-03-2012 dks yscj fcy dk Hkqxrku :0 127899-00 rFkk lkexzh vkiwfrZ dk Hkqxrku :0 273386-00 fnukad 28-05-2012 dks ysdj fcy :0 117102-00 rFkk lkexzh vkiwfrZ dk Hkqxrku :0 594891-00] 55416-00 dqy Hkqxrku :0 1168694-00 dk fd;k x;kA ¼i=koyh ist la0&151]84]137]81]79½ vkiwfrZdrkZ esllZ vkfn'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst }kjk ;fn v/kksekud lkexzh dh vkiwfrZ dh x;h gS rks mDr QeZ dks rRdky izHkko ls dkyh lwph esa Mky nsuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj Hkfo"; esa blls dksbZ vkiwfrZ ,oa vU; dk;Z ugha djk;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk tcfd mDr frfFk ds ckn Hkh yxkrkj esllZ vkfn'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst ls lkefxz;ksa dh vkiwfrZ dh tkrh jgha gSA v/kksekud lkefxz;ksa dks Lohdkj djus okys voj vfHk;Urk Jh vfuy dqekj ;kno ,oa lgk;d vfHk;Urk vfuy ik.Ms; dks lkbV ls gVkdj nf.Mr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk fdUrq budks yxkrkj lkbV ij cuk;s j[kk x;k buds f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;hA ekW ihrkEcj Vzs~~MlZ }kjk vkiwfrZr lkeku dh ,e0ch0 dkZ ij rSukr voj vfHk;urk Jh vfuy ;kno ds ctk; vU; voj vfHk;Urk Hkh Jh gjh'k f=ikBh ls djk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS voj vfHk;urk Jh gjh'k f=ikBh }kjk izkIr lkekuksa dks LFky ij rSukr voj vfHk;Urk Jh vfuy ;kno dks izkIr djk;s tkus dk izek.k Hkh miyC/k ugha djk;k tk ldk gSA yscj ,e0ch0&17708 ist ua0 27 ls 41 ls 8 gks jgk g ¼i=koyh ist la0&165 ls 151½ fd fIyUFk ds fczd odZ ls ysdj Nr dk;Z fnukad & 01-02-2012 ls 20-03-2012 rd djk;k x;k tcfd eSVsfj;y ,e0ch0 i=koyh ist la0&68 ds vuqlkj ekW ihrkEcjkVzsMlZ ls Qsczhds'ku dh lIykbZ fnukad 4-03-2012 ls 20-03-2012 rd izkIr gqvk gS tcfd ekW ihrkEcjk Vzs~MlZ ds pkyku ds vuqlkj fnukad 15-03-2012 ,oa 17-03-2012 esa }kjk vkiwfrZr crk;k x;k gS ,sls esa ekW ihrkEcjk VzsMlZ ls izkIr Qsczhds'ku lkexzh ¼izsl LVhy] Mksj fcUMks pkS[kV fxzy vkfn½ dks fuekZ.k Lfky ij yxk;k tkuk lEHko izrhr ugha gksrk gSA dk;Zjr rRdkyhu voj vfHk;Urk Jh vfuy dqekj ;kno dk fyf[kr c;ku ¼i=koyh ist la0&206½ esa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd esllZ vkfn'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst ls izkIr Qsczhds'ku lkexzh ¼Mksj pkS[kV foUMks fxzy vkfn½ fuekZ.k dk;Z ij yx;k x;k gSA ,oa Jh ik.Ms; }kjk mDr lkeku ds [kjkc gksus rFkk okil djus dh fdlh lwpuk ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gSA Jh fouksn dqekj frokjh izksijkbVj esllZ vkfn'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst dk fyf[kr c;ku ¼i=koyh ist la0&205½ esa crk;k x;k gS esllZ vkfn'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst ds fcyksa ls tks fjdojh dh x;h gS Jh fouksn frokjh dks dksbZ tkudkjh ughsa gS ,oa Jh frokjh }kjk dksbZ uxn /kujkf'k iSdQsM fuekZ.k iz[k.M vktex<+ esa tek ugha dh gSA vkiwfrZdrkZ ekW ihrkEcjk VzsMlZ ls muds }kjk dh x;h vkiwfrZ ds lEcU/k esa ¼i=koyh ist la0&210 ls 215½ esa fn;s x;s fyf[kr tokc ds dze esa voxr djk;k x;k fd mijksDr vkns'k ds dze esa cqd ua0&1 pkyku la0&33 fn0 15-03-2012 ,oa cqd ua0&01 pkyku la0 34 fn0 15-03-2012 ,oa cqd ua0&01 pkyku la0 &35 fn0 17-03-2012 ftlesa Vz~sd la0 ;w0ih0&32 ch0,u0&3854 }kjk dze'k% fn015-03-2012 ,oa 17-03-2012 dks vkn'kZ Vz~kaliksVZ lfcZl th0vkj0ua0 &4091 fn0 15-03-2012 ,oa th0vkj0ua0&4125 fn0 17-03-2012 }kjk ys tk;k x;k pkyku dh Nk;kizfr;ka 1@33 &15-03-2012 ,oa 1@34 15-03-2012 nksuks ds th0vkj0ua0 ,oa okgu la[;k ,d lkeku ikbZ x;h gS rFkk nksuks pkykuksa dk mijksDr okgu dk HkkM+k vyx&vyx dze’k% 11000-00 gtkj n'kkZ;k x;k gS tks fd lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gS vkiwfrZ vkns'k la0&12@856 fn0 04-03-2012 dks fuxZr vkiwfrZ vkns'k esa HkkM+s dk mYys[k vyx ls ugha fd;k x;k gS tcfd ¼i=koyh la0&02½ HkkM+s ds en esa :0 30977-00 dk Hkqxrku ekW ihrkEcjk VzsMlZ }kjk fy;k x;k gSA v/kksgLRkk{kjh ds dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh i= ¼i=koyh la0&216½ ds tokc esa voj vfHk;Urk Jh gjh'k f=ikBh }kjk fn;s x;s fyf[kr c;ku ¼i=koyh la0&227 ls 228½ esa Jh f=ikBh }kjk ;g voxr djk;k x;k fd dsoy Qsczhds'ku lkexzh ds eki ,oa xq.koRrk lqfuf'pr djus ds vkns'k ¼i=koyh la0&227½ gsrq fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk mDr ds lEcU/k esa vkiwfrZr lkexzh dh xq.koRrk tkap ds mijkUr gh Hkqxrku dh izfdz;k viuk;h tkrh gS ftl i=kad }kjk i=kad &iSd@112@11&12 fn0 03-03-2012 ds }kjk Jh f=ikBh ,oa lgk0vfHk0 Jh vej thr oekZ dks iwoZ esa dk;Zjr voj vfHk0 Jh vfuy dqekj ;kno ,oa lgk0vfHk0 Jh vfuy dqekj ik.Ms; ds Lfkku ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS mDr i=kad ftlds }kjk voj vfHk0 Jh f=ikBh ,oa lgk0 vfHk0 Jh oekZ dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS vktex<+ iz[k.M dk;kZy; esa fMLisp jftLVj ls mDr i=kad ds lkis{k vU; i= tkjh fd;s x;s gS ¼i=koyh la0&229 ,oa 230½ Jh f=ikBh ds }kjk ekW ihrkEcjk VzsMlZ ls izkIr Qsczhds'ku lkexzh dks fuekZ.k LFky ij miyC/k djkus ds lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;s tk ldsA ¼i=koyh la0&216 ,oa 228½ Jh vfuy dqekj ;kno voj vfHk0 ,oa rRdkyhu lgk0 vfHk0 Jh vfuy dqekj ik.Ms; iqu% ekiu ,oa xq.koRrk tkWp gsrq fu;qDr voj vfHk0 Jh gjh'k f=ikBh }kjk fn;s x;s fyf[kr c;kuksa esa gh fojksèkkHkkl gS dk laKku ysus dk djsa ¼i=koyh la0 dze'k% 204] 206 ,oa 228½ mDr ds vfrfjDr Jh fouksn frokjh }kjk ;g Hkh f'kdk;r dh x;h gS fd ifj;kstuk vfHk;Urk Jh ;ksxsUnz fxfj }kjk /kedh nh tk jgh gS fd rqe dke djkvks] rqEgkjk Hkqxrku fdlh vkSj dks dj nsaxsA ;g f'kdk;r rF;ghu izrhr gksrh gS ifj;kstuk vfHk;Urk iSdQsM fuekZ.k iz[k.M vktex<+ }kjk vkxs dk;Z djus gsrq esllZ vkfn'kfDRk b.Vjizkbtst ;k Jh fouksn frokjh dksbZ dk;kZns'k fuxZr ugha fd;k x;k gS ,sls esa Jh fouksn frokjh }kjk ifj;kstuk vfHk;Urk ds dk;kZns'k fuxZr fx, fcuk dk;Z djk;k tkuk vkifRrtud gS ftldk Hkqxrku fdlh n'kk esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA Jh fouksn frokjh dks fcuk ifj;kstuk vfHk;Urk iSdQsM fuekZ.k vktex<+ ls dk;kZns'k izkIr gq, dk;Z ugha djk;k tkuk pkfg,A mijksDr izdj.k dh tkWp ekuuh; U;k;ky; ¼i=koyh la0 194 ,oa 195½ }kjk Hkh djk;h tk jgh gS tkWp vk[;k vko';d dk;kZokgh gsrq izLrqr gSA layXud & tkap vk[;k i=koyh la0&01 ls 231 rdA 27. Thereafter, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.4.2013 in writ petition [Writ Petition No. 228 (SB) of 2013] directed the District Judge to hold an enquiry and submit the report. That order reads as : “Heard Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Supplementary rejoinder-affidavit filed today is taken on record. It is alleged that during the course of construction work of a building in the campus of Civil Court, district Mau, the petitioner as a Project Engineer, raised objection to the substandard work executed by the contractor. The contractor lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner, admittedly, it has been stayed by this Court. It is alleged that on account of persuasion of contractor, the petitioner has been attached by the impugned order. Submission of petitioner’s counsel is that the order of attachment is actuated by mala fide since the petitioner has interrupted with the contractor’s substandard work. The District Judge Mau is directed to submit a report to this Court with regard to work executed by the contractor. He shall visit the spot and after hearing the petitioner, other officers of respondents agency as well as other related persons, submit a report to this Court within two weeks. List on 14.5.2013. On the next date of listing, the record shall again be produced. The Registrar of this Court shall immediately communicate the order to the District Judge, Mau.” In compliance of the above order, learned District Judge, Mau, enquired into the allegations and has submitted the following report: “Letter No. 622/227 Admin. XV Date Mau 3.5.13 From R.N. Mishra District Judge, Mau (U.P.) To The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. Sub : Report in compliance of Order dated 23-04-2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. -228 (S/B) of 2013 Yogendra Giri v. U.P. Processing and Construction Co-operative Federation Limited (PACFED) through its Managing Director, Lucknow and others. Sub : Report in compliance of Order dated 23-04-2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. -228 (S/B) of 2013 Yogendra Giri v. U.P. Processing and Construction Co-operative Federation Limited (PACFED) through its Managing Director, Lucknow and others. Sir, With reference to your letter No. 2792/2013, Lucknow dated 27.4.2013 in the matter of above subject, it is respectfully submitted that in compliance of direction of Hon’ble Court, after giving notice to the project engineer of Construction Unit PACFED, Azamgarh to inform Sri Yogendra Giri and other concerned persons to be present on the site I visited construction site of Type IV residences in the Civil Court campus, Mau, on 02-05-2013 at 10 O’clock where following persons were found present- 1. Sri Yogendra Giri, the then Project Engineer and the petitioner of the writ petition. 2. Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, the present Project Engineer. 3. Sri A.K. Pandey, A.E. 4. Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, J.E. 5. Sri Harish Tripathi, J.E. (T) 6. Sri Vinod Tiwari, the contractor, and 7. Sri Hare Tiwari, the contractor’s man I inspected the construction of four Type-IV double storey residences in presence of above persons and found that- (a) brick work of both the floors is complete only projections remain to be laid. (b) Internal plaster of the ground floor residences and that of one residence at first floor are also complete. (c) External plaster of all the residences is incomplete. (d) Flooring of all the four residences is incomplete. (e) Fabrication work of those windows and ventilators in all the four residences is complete without wood work. (f) There is no fitting in Kitchen and toilets. (g) Stair case is also without plaster (made of bricks). (h) External site is not developed as yet. Thus, only 70% work appears to be complete. At present the work at the site is admittedly stopped. On enquiry, it was pointed out that the petitioner Sri Yogendra Giri, the then project engineer has made double payment for the fabrication work. Hence, due to shortage of budget and also due to complaint regarding double payment made by Sri Yogendra Giri the construction work has been stopped. It has also been pointed out by the present project engineer Sri Vinay Kumar Singh that out of total amount of Rs. 93.04 lacs sanctioned for the project, Rs. 9,56,118=00 was paid to M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises for fabrication work and Rs. It has also been pointed out by the present project engineer Sri Vinay Kumar Singh that out of total amount of Rs. 93.04 lacs sanctioned for the project, Rs. 9,56,118=00 was paid to M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises for fabrication work and Rs. 1,27,899=00 for labor and again Rs. 12,02,952=00 to M/s. Maa Pitambra Traders, Lucknow for the same work. Thus, total amount Rs. 22,86,969=00 approximately 24% of the budget sanctioned has been spent only on fabrication work resulting in shortage of fund. Sri Yogendra Giri denied that he has made double payment. Though, he admits above payments to both the firms, but he says that on complaint of use of substandard materials by the contractor, a committee was constituted and enquiry was ordered by him on 28.2.2012. Thereafter, an order was passed to recover the amount from M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises. When confronted, he admitted that after making payment of Rs. 9,56,118=00 on 27-02-2012 on recommendation of concerned AE & JE at the site, he did not pass any order to stop delivery of cheque to the contractor. The cheque was handed over to the contractor on 05-03-2012. The present project engineer Sri Vinay Kumar Singh says that Sri Yogendra Giri has fabricated the documents subsequent to the complaint made by the contractor in October 2012 to safeguard himself. He has further raised certain genuine points as to: 1.Why he did not cancel the measurement book prepared by and cheque given to M/s. Aadi Shakti despite receipt of complaint on 28-02-2012 and inquiry order, 2.Why he paid Rs. 1,27,899=00 as labor charges for fixing door frames, windows etc. to M/s. Aadi Shakti on 29-(sic)-2012, 3.Why he kept on giving supply orders and making payments to M/s. Aadi Shakti even after enquiry report till August 2012 and did not black list the firm, 4.Why he did not call any explanation from the concerned JE Sri Anil Kumar Yadav and AE Sri A.K. Pandey who were responsible for quality check? The claim of Sri Yogendra Giri that the labor work for fixing door frames, windows etc was done by Maa Pitambara Traders and payment was also made to Maa Pitambra Traders only, appears to be against the record as labor measurement book produced before me clearly shows that the payment was recommended by Sri A.K. Pandey, AE concerned and made to M/s. Aadi Shakti. (emphasis supplied) Sri A.K. Pandey, the concerned AE has stated that the fabrication materials were supplied and labor work for fixing was done only by M/s. Aadi Shakti Enterprises. All these facts have not been explained satisfactorily by Sri Yogendra Giri, rather he has tried to produce certain papers including photocopy of desptach register, genuineness of which has been questioned. Therefore, their verification from the record of the office concerned is required which can only be done through a full fledged enquiry. Hence, you are requested that the report may kindly be placed before the Hon’ble Court for kind consideration. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (R.N. Mishra) Dated: 08-05-2013 District Judge, Mau” 28. In view of three reports submitted by different Enquiry Officers including the one by learned District Judge, Mau, out of which two are said to be against the petitioner Sri Yogendra Giri, and one in the enquiry constituted by him, in his favour, and further that in his recommendation, learned District Judge has requested for a detailed enquiry, we direct the Registrar General to place the enquiry reports before Hon’ble the Chief Justice, to look into the matter and if his Lordship so decides, to hold a detailed inquiry into the quality of construction and allegations of corruption, if any. 29. In the premises, when two enquiry reports are against Sri Yogendra Giri, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 228 (SB) of 2013, we are not inclined to grant indulgence. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed. 30. Now coming to Writ Petition No. 979 (SB) of 2013, on 7.6.2013, respondent No. 3 i.e. Managing Director of PACFED, passed the impugned transfer order whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Azamgarh Construction Wing, PACFED to the PACFED Headquarters, Lucknow and on the same date, private respondent No. 4, who was earlier attached to the PACFED Headquarters, Lucknow, has again been transferred and posted at the Construction Wing, PACFED, District Azamgarh as Project Engineer in place of the petitioner. 31. It is contended that on 5.12.2013, the then Managing Director, PACFED, on the complaint made against respondent No. 4, namely, Shri Yogendra Giri, during his tenure as Project Engineer, Construction Wing, PACFED, Azamgarh, transferred him from Azamgarh and attached him to the Headquarters PACFED, Lucknow in order to conduct a just and fair enquiry in respect of allegations made against him. On the same date, namely, 5.2.2013 itself, the petitioner was posted as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh in place of private respondent No. 4 Shri Yogendra Giri. Thus, the petitioner joined as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh and private respondent No. 4 joined at the Headquarters PACFED, Lucknow. Private respondent No. 4 however filed a writ petition before this Court bearing its No. 228 (SB) of 2013, to challenge the order dated 5.2.2013 bearing its reference No. 9291-94/QF-A/001 whereby he was transferred from Azamgarh Construction Wing, PACFED and attached to the Headquarters PACFED, Lucknow. He also challenged the order dated 5.2.2013 bearing its reference No. 9295-99/QF-A/001, whereby the petitioner was posted as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh. In the writ petition, the petitioner has been arrayed as respondent No. 3. Further, this Court during preliminary hearing of Writ Petition No. 228 (SB) of 2013 filed by respondent No. 4 Shri Yogendra Giri did not incline to pass any interim order in his favour against the impugned order dated 5.2.2013. This Court only directed the respondents to produce the original records in respect of the dispute in question. In the meanwhile, an enquiry was made by the department in respect of the allegations against the private respondent regarding the embezzlement and irregularities committed by him during his posting as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh. On 2.3.2013, Shri Ajeet Singh, Executive Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing III, Lucknow, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, submitted his enquiry report wherein the allegations of embezzlement of several lacs of rupees against Shri Yogendra Giri was found to be true. Accordingly, the said private respondent has been held guilty of the irregularities in construction and making of illegal payments of several lacs of rupees again for the same works done. It is a further submission that in the meanwhile private respondent No. 4 challenged the F.I.R. dated 18.12.2012 by filing Writ Petition No. 341 of 2013 before this High Court at Allahabad and on 11.1.2013, his arrest was stayed. Subsequently on 2.4.2013, this Court modified its order dated 11/1.2013 and disposed of the Writ Petition No. 341 of 2013 filed by the private respondent with a direction that he shall not be arrested till cogent materials are not collected by the investigating officer during the pendency of investigation, and the investigation shall be completed expeditiously. 32. Subsequently on 2.4.2013, this Court modified its order dated 11/1.2013 and disposed of the Writ Petition No. 341 of 2013 filed by the private respondent with a direction that he shall not be arrested till cogent materials are not collected by the investigating officer during the pendency of investigation, and the investigation shall be completed expeditiously. 32. In the meanwhile, this Court, on the request of private respondent No. 4, directed learned District Judge, Mau on 23.4.2013 to personally enquire into the matter by visiting the site in question and submit a report to the Court. On 10.5.2013, the Managing Director i.e. respondent No. 3, in view of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer Shri Ajeet Singh against private respondent No. 4 Shri Yogendra Giri regarding the irregularities committed by him in respect of construction of Type-IV residences in Judgeship Colony, District Mau and the allegation of several lacs of rupees embezzled by him, passed an order dated 10.5.2013 whereby a departmental enquiry has been initiated against Shri Yogendra Giri. One Shri Naval Prakash Singh, Executive Engineer, Headquarters PACFED, Lucknow has been appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct a departmental enquiry against private respondent No. 4 Shri Yogendra Giri in accordance with law and submit a report within two months. On 14.5.2013, the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 228 (SB) of 2013 was listed before the Court. However, the enquiry report to be submitted by learned District Judge, Mau was not produced, as such, this Court granted him further four weeks’ time to file the report in respect of the allegations made against the private respondent. It is alleged that in the meanwhile private respondent No. 4 Shri Yogendra Giri exerted pressure upon the respondents to get the petitioner transferred from Azamgarh. Accordingly on 30.5.2013, the petitioner was transferred from Azamgarh to Kanpur. However, on 5.6.2013, the respondent Managing Director, PACFED, Lucknow cancelled the transfer order dated 30.5.2013 of the petitioner and allowed him to continue as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh. It is further submitted that within two days of the cancellation of petitioner’s earlier transfer order dated 5.6.2013, the Managing Director, PACFED, for the reasons best known to him passed the impugned transfer order dated 7.6.2013 bearing reference No. 2339-42/QF-A/001 whereby Shri Yogendra Giri, on his own request, has again been transferred/posted as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh. It is further submitted that within two days of the cancellation of petitioner’s earlier transfer order dated 5.6.2013, the Managing Director, PACFED, for the reasons best known to him passed the impugned transfer order dated 7.6.2013 bearing reference No. 2339-42/QF-A/001 whereby Shri Yogendra Giri, on his own request, has again been transferred/posted as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh. Moreover, respondent No. 3, on the same day, passed consequential impugned order bearing reference No. 2343-46/QF-A/001 whereby private respondent No. 4 was relieved of the charge in the Headquarters, PACFED, Lucknow with a direction to submit his joining at PACFED Construction Wing, Azamgarh. However, in the impugned transfer order, the order No. 2329-32/QF-A/001 dated 7.6.2013 has been referred to which the petitioner claims to be unaware. 33. On the same date i.e. 7.6.2013, the Managing Director, PACFED, Lucknow i.e. respondent No. 3 also passed the third impugned order bearing reference No. 2351-55/QF-A/001 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Azamgarh to Headquarters, PACFED, Lucknow to accommodate private respondent No. 4 with a further direction to the petitioner to hand over his charge to private respondent No. 4. It is also submitted that till date of filing of writ petition the petitioner has not handed over his charge of Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Lucknow to the private respondent as the petitioner is on leave due to illness of his wife. It is also pleaded that the impugned transfer order of the petitioner has been made on the behest of private respondent Shri Yogendra Giri, who wanted to again join as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh in order to manipulate the documents and records so as to shield the irregularities committed in the construction and to escape the charge of embezzlement made against him and one Shri Harish Tripathi, Junior Engineer. It is urged that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust and as such could not have been passed in favour of the private respondent. It is urged that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust and as such could not have been passed in favour of the private respondent. The department itself has already, by order dated 10.5.2013 initiated departmental proceedings against the private respondent which is still going on and thus during the course of the departmental enquiry, the transfer of the private respondent No. 4 by the impugned order is wholly unjustified and rather it is a collusive attempt on the part of department to help in influencing and manipulating the enquiry records by the private respondent Shri Yogendra Giri, and as such, on this ground alone, the impugned transfer orders are liable to be quashed. 34. It is also urged that the impugned orders have been passed during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 228 (SB) of 2013 before this Court, wherein the Court has called for an enquiry report, in respect of controversy in question, from the District Judge, Mau, who has made a request for detailed inquiry. On 5.2.2013, the petitioner was posted as Project Engineer, PACFED, Construction Wing, Azamgarh and just in a period of four months he has been transferred only on the behest of private respondent No. 4. The impugned transfer order dated 7.6.2013 of the petitioner has been made against the New Transfer Policy 2013-14 of the State Government which is applicable upon PACFED also. According to New Transfer Policy, no transfer order can be made after 31.5.2013 except with prior consent of the concerned Minister or the Chief Minister as the case may be. 35. As the petitioner is said to be a resident of Azamgarh itself; as he is also said to be a junior person; as learned District Judge has requested for a detailed inquiry which may not be held independently in the presence of and during the posting of either of the litigating parties, and as on today, the plea of midsession transfer may not hold good, we dismiss the Writ Petition No. 979 (SB) of 2013.