JUDGMENT: 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicant is a Officer of the Rajasthan Judicial Service. While she was posted as Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner, a transfer application was filed by the complainant Madan Singh, respondent No.1 to transfer the proceedings of the case from her Court to some other Court. The transfer application was addressed to the District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner with a copy to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Hon’ble Administrative Judge, Hon’ble Inspecting Judge, the Registrar (Vigilance), and the applicant. 3. It is alleged in the contempt petition that the allegations in the transfer petition amounts to contempt of court, inasmuch as the allegations are of such nature which scandalises the administration of justice. It is stated in the contempt petition that the letter/application was just to scandalise the Court and to obstructs the smooth administration of justice. The application was sent directly to the Presiding Officer without following due procedure raising offensive, outrageous and exaggerated language. Personal allegations were levelled against the applicant who happens to be a lady officer. It is further submitted in the contempt petition that the incident had occurred on 28.09.2012 but till registering and enlisting the complaint for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the respondent did not mention anything in the Court. They had, later on, purposefully sent transfer application containing contemptuous allegations. 4. The respondents have filed a reply in which they have denied that transfer application was made on any false and frivolous grounds. In paragraph 3 to 9 of the reply, it is stated that on 28.09.2012, learned Magistrate had spoken to them in loud voice in the presence of the accused who was a police personnel and thereafter fixed the date on 01.10.2012. It was further alleged that in between, these dates, the SHO and the ASI went to the chambers of the learned Magistrate on which the respondents had reason to believe that the police personnel were advised to make to an effort to compromise the matter. 5. In the opening paragraph of the reply, the respondents have sought unconditional apology with the leave of the Court to submit correct and factual story. 6. 5. In the opening paragraph of the reply, the respondents have sought unconditional apology with the leave of the Court to submit correct and factual story. 6. We have gone through the contents of the transfer application and do not find that the submissions made, which the respondents believe to be true, are such, which may be treated scandalous or which impedes, obstructs or hampers the administration of justice. Though we do not find that apology has been rendered with clear heart, as it is conditional upon addressing correct and factual story, the allegations made in the transfer application do not amount to contempt committed by the respondents. We do not propose to take any further action in the matter. 7. Before parting with the case, we may observe that a Judicial Officer should not be sensitive to the allegations made against him/her. In the discharge of judicial work, a Judicial Officer has to take a lot of criticism inasmuch as no Judicial Officer can please both the parties nor can decide the case in favour of both or all the parties, who have appeared before him/her. If the criticism is not with malicious intentions or it does not scandalises administration of justice, the Judicial Officer should have resilience in discharge of judicial functions to accept such criticism. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations do not constitute contempt to be proceeded further in the matter. 9. The contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.