JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector (Telecommunication)/Radio Anurakshan Adhikari and he has been transferred from 40th Battalion P.A.C. Haridwar to District Rudraprayag by respondent no.2/Inspector General, Police Telecommunication, Uttarakhand Dehradun vide order dated 17.06.2016. The order of transfer is admittedly passed on administrative ground. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the conduct of the petitioner is not as it should be in the disciplinary Police force. The petitioner has been warned several times and it has been observed on several occasions that he was not present on duty and generally remains absent and his activities are also suspicious and in absence of his superior officers, the petitioner does not perform his duties properly. 3. The petitioner was earlier warned for his conduct and was directed to improve his conduct, which has not been done. However, all these facts though have been stated in the counter affidavit and have not been stated in the impugned transfer order. Though, the transfer order can be made on administrative ground but reasons must be recorded. 4. In the case of Smt. Damayanti Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2008 (2) U.D. 517 , the Full Bench of this Court has laid down the following law, which reads as under:- “We accordingly over-rule the view adopted by the Division Bench in the interlocutory order dated 1st July, 2008 in the aforesaid writ petition. We, while upholding the aforesaid view, substitute our own opinion by laying down that even though a transfer order on administrative ground per se is not bad in law, no person can be transferred on an administrative ground unless before issuing the transfer order, the Authority competent to transfer has arrived at and recorded his satisfaction, upon due verification and confirmation, about the existence and truthfulness of anyone of the three factors/grounds/considerations warranting the transfer of the person concerned”. 5. Definitely in the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the State Government is that reasons were recorded by the concerned authority before transferring the petitioner. All these reasons are being given now in the form of counter affidavit. They are not there in the transfer order. 6. In view thereof, the transfer order 17.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2/Inspector General, Police Telecommunication, Uttarakhand Dehradun cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 7. All these reasons are being given now in the form of counter affidavit. They are not there in the transfer order. 6. In view thereof, the transfer order 17.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2/Inspector General, Police Telecommunication, Uttarakhand Dehradun cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 7. However, considering that serious allegations have been made against the petitioner by the respondents in their counter affidavit, the State/Inspector General, Police Telecommunication, Uttarakhand Dehradun will be at liberty to initiate either the disciplinary proceedings or alternatively consider compulsory retiring the petitioner from service, in case, the law of compulsory retirement is applicable in the Police Department. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed. 9. Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to communicate this order to the concerned authority for onward compliance.