JUDGMENT : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Garg has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order Annex.18 dated 17.6.2016 whereby, he was transferred from the post of SDM, Sadulshahar to the post of Project Director, Scheduled Caste Development Corporation, Sri Ganganagar. 2. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to attribute malafides to the respondent authorities on the ground that within a short duration of 2 years, the petitioner was subjected to 6 transfers. He submitted that the last transfer of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 17.6.2016 is malafide for the reason that the same was carried out just in order to adjust one Rakesh Kumar on the post held by the petitioner. Shri Mathur urged that earlier on also, an attempt was to bring Rakesh Kumar on the very same post but the exercise proved futile because the petitioner challenged the attempted action by filing writ petition no.8045/2015 in this Court. This Court while entertaining the said writ petition, stayed the operation of the order of transfer where after the respondent authorities suo moto withdraw the same. Within a short duration thereafter, petitioner has again been transferred. Thus, he vehemently contended that the impugned order is illegal as the same suffers from malice in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. S.S. Rathore associate to AAG Dr. P.S. Bhati vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that some transfer orders came to be passed qua the petitioner within the last two years in administrative exigency but the fact remains that he managed to stall such transfer orders either by not joining or by obtaining stay from judicial fora. He contended that the latest transfer of the petitioner by the impugned order was necessitated because he was not discharging his duties in the right earnest and was found negligent during the visit of Smt. Harsimrat Kaur Badal Central Minister for Food and Processing Industry in Sri Ganganagar. For this delinquency, the petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and therefore, it was thought fit in administrative exigency to transfer the petitioner vide the impugned transfer order. Mr. For this delinquency, the petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and therefore, it was thought fit in administrative exigency to transfer the petitioner vide the impugned transfer order. Mr. S.S. Rathore relied upon Rule 20 of the RSR and urged that the statutory provision clearly empowers the State Government to transfer a Government servant from one post to another in case of inefficiency or misbehaviour. He submitted that as the petitioner was found irresponsible and negligent while discharging duties during the visit of a Central Minister, the authorities concerned were left with no option but to transfer him. Thus, he urged that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 4. In rejoinder, Shri Kuldeep Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors. and urged that as the transfer order has been passed by way of punishment, the same clearly reflects malice in law and deserves to be set aside in light of the ratio of the above judgment. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on record and have also given careful consideration to the judgment cited at the Bar. 5. Suffice it to say that the case set up by the petitioner regarding his frequent transfers is totally unfounded in view of the chart of postings Annex.R/1 which has been placed on record with the reply. The chart reflects that the petitioner has been transferred on 4 occasions during the period between 2013 to 2015. However, as stated by the respondents, on one of these occasions, the petitioner did not join his given place of posting and for another he got a stay from the Court. Therefore, ex-facie the assertion of the petitioner's counsel regarding frequent and malafide transfers of the petitioner is factually incorrect. Now coming to the allegation that the impugned transfer order is afflicted by malice in law. Suffice it to say that the petitioner himself has not disputed the fact that a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him for his failure to discharge duties diligently during the visit of a Central Minister. Now coming to the allegation that the impugned transfer order is afflicted by malice in law. Suffice it to say that the petitioner himself has not disputed the fact that a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him for his failure to discharge duties diligently during the visit of a Central Minister. In this background and considering the clear intent of Rule 20 of the RSR, this Court is of the opinion that no malafides can be attributed to the authority concerned in passing the impugned transfer order Annex.18 because such an action is sanctioned by the Statute. Furthermore, the petitioner has been transferred from one post at Sri Ganganagar to another in the very same town. Therefore, apparently, no inconvenience would be caused to the petitioner by such transfer. Thus, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent writ jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the impugned transfer order dated 17.6.2016 (Annex.18) which apparently came to be passed purely by way of administrative exigency. 6. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 7. Stay petition also stands dismissed. No order as to cost.