ORDER : 1. Both the two employees are working as Messenger and members of Group-D, which is ordinarily known as Class-IV cadre, have entered into service i.e. Chiggan Lal in 1989 and Ravi Kumar Sharma in 2003. It is informed that Ravi Kumar Sharma was working on daily wages basis but regularized in 2003 and it is not disputed that both of them are holding transferable post and certainly can be transferred wherever required in the interest of administration or exigency of service within or outside the State. 2. In the instant case, both were transferred vide office order dated 15/20.12.2016 & Chigan Lal has been transferred from Jaipur to Gurgaon & Ravi Kumar Sharma from Jaipur to Dehradun and one Diwan Singh has been transferred vice Ravi Kumar Sharma from Dehradun to Jaipur. 3. The order impugned came to be challenged by both of them by filing their respective original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal and both the original applications preferred by the individual employee have been dismissed under the common order impugned dated 17.04.2017. 4. At the outset, it may be noticed that the Senior Officer - V.K.Sharma who is working as Joint Director (Class-I Officer) because of the alleged misbehaviour of Ravi Kumar Sharma filed a criminal complaint against him u/Sec.323, 341 & 504 IPC on 10.07.2011, on which cognizance has been taken and as informed to this court the trial is pending and Ravi Kumar Sharma is facing trial. 5. It appears that as a counter-blast Ravi Kumar Sharma also filed written complaint on which cognizance has been taken by the ld.trial court on 04.01.2012 and the fact is that there are two criminal complaints on which cognizance has been taken i.e. the first one filed at the instance of the Senior Officer V.K. Sharma and another at the instance of the Messenger Ravi Kumar Sharma and both are pending before the competent court having jurisdiction. 6. At the same time, another employee Chigan Lal earlier made a complaint against his Senior Officers that they have abused, manhandled and threatened him but it appears that the said complaint was found to be false and for making such a false complaint, the competent authority took a decision to serve him a memorandum on 15.07.2016 in which he is facing departmental enquiry. 7. 7. We are not commenting upon the criminal matter or department enquiry which are pending against both the employees, of which reference has been made, but this fact cannot be ruled out that administration is not running smoothly, at the moment and sometimes it become difficult for the administration to function and maintain good governance, which is sine-qua-non for better administration. 8. In the present background, the order of transfer of both the employees, which came to be passed for administrative reason, was challenged before the ld. Tribunal by filing original applications. Reply to the original applications was filed by the respondents and taking the overall material into consideration, which has come on record and taking note of the settled principles of law in appreciating the scope of judicial review in the matters of transfer, the ld. Tribunal was not inclined to interfere in the order of transfer impugned by which both the employees were transferred to the respective places and the Original Applications came to be dismissed vide common order dated 17.04.2017. 9. When the matter last came up before the court, taking note of the fact that both the petitioners are Class-IV employees and have been transferred outside the State may certainly cause some inconvenience to them, we were of the view that if they tender apology and submit in writing that such alleged incident may be avoided, the matter can certainly be sent back for review in the given facts & circumstances but counsel, on instructions, informed that he has been instructed by his clients that it may not be possible for them to tender apology for the reason that if they tender apology, it may amount to acceptance of guilt as each of them are facing criminal trial and departmental enquiry in the given facts & circumstances. 10. What being transpired is not material for this court but for running the administration, if such alleged incident, of which we have taken note, occurs, it may not be in the interest of administration and this is the reason for which the employee if holding a transferable post can certainly be transferred either in the interest of administration or in exigency of service, as the case may be and this what persuaded to the ld. Tribunal while dismissing the original applications by a common order dated 17.04.2017. 11. Tribunal while dismissing the original applications by a common order dated 17.04.2017. 11. Additional submission made by counsel for the petitioner is regarding the alleged malice against the Senior Officer and despite sufficient material being available on record against the Senior Officer at whose instance impugned transfer order has been passed it has not been properly appreciated by the ld. Tribunal and placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Gurdial Singh & Ors. reported in (1980) 2 SCC 471 and B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in 1986 SCC (L&S) 750. 12. The submission made by counsel for the petitioners is bereft of merit for the reason that the allegation is against the Senior Officer V.K. Sharma but he is not the officer who has passed the order of transfer & holding competence in passing the order impugned and his submission that the Officer, against whom criminal case is instituted & is instrumental in passing the order of transfer is not based on tangible evidence on record, in absence of any malice being imputed against the Officer who has passed the order of transfer impugned, malice on fact or law, as alleged in court, remains unsubstantiated and the judgments relied upon by the counsel may not be of any assistance. 13. After we have heard counsel for the petitioners at length, we find no manifest error being committed by the ld. Tribunal in passing the order impugned dated 17.04.2017 which may call for our interference. 14. Consequently, both the writ petitions being devoid of merit, accordingly stand dismissed.