JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to GA-III for the State. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of transfer dated 29.10.2016, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (respondent No.4), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Incharge Headmaster, Middle School, Aarakshi Kendra, Anchal – Nagarpalika, Dhanbad to Primary School, Duma, Anchal – East Tundi, on the ground of allegations. 3. The facts as derived from the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 14.11.1994 and since then, he has been working sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of all concerned, where he has been posted. Earlier the petitioner was posted at Chirogoda, Dhanbad. As the petitioner was facing great hardship and difficulty, he made representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for transferring him to a place near to his residence. The same was sympathetically considered and petitioner was transferred to Middle School, Aarakshi Kendra, Dhanbad vide order dated 22.02.2012. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner joined to this transferred place on 17.01.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was put on deputation at Anath School, Hirapur, Dhanbad. Vide another office order dated 09.11.2015, issued by the Area Education Officer, Dhanbad the petitioner was made Incharge Headmaster of the Middle School, Aarakshi Kendra, Dhanbad and the petitioner was repatriated to his original school by cancelling the order of deputation of the petitioner with immediate effect and in compliance of the order, the petitioner joined the said school. Suddenly, the petitioner has been transferred on 29.10.2016 from Middle School, Aarakshi Kendra, Anchal Nagarpalika, Dhanbad to Primary School, Duma, Anchal East Tundi on certain allegations/charges that petitioner took over the charge of Incharge Headmaster on his own interest and with a view to disturb the peace maintained in the school and to divert the educational environment thereof. On receipt of such transfer order, the petitioner immediately made representation regarding his transfer to the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad as well as to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, stating inter alia that there was no own interest involved in taking over the charge of Incharge Headmaster, rather it was in compliance of the order passed by the competent authority, as would be evident from the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 04.11.2016. As no orders have been passed on the representations of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order of transfer. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon assisted by Mr. Ranesh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the order of transfer is fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it is ex-facie punitive in nature. The order of transfer has been passed in lieu of punishment, as the same is based on the allegation, which is evident from the impugned order itself. Learned counsel further submits that certainly the petitioner has no right to stay a particular order but simultaneously, no orders could be passed which are punitive in nature and as such, the impugned order of transfer is fit to be quashed and set aside. The order is non est in the eyes of law and it should not be given effect to and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to rescind the said order and put back the petitioner to his original place. In support of his arguments, leaned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 and the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2013 (4) JLJR 201 . 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that in no way it can be said that the said order is punitive in nature as it has specifically been mentioned in the order that transfer has been done on administrative ground. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and argues that on administrative reasons, the petitioner has been transferred as there was no teachers available in the transferred school and as such, the petitioner was transferred so that the children of that school should not suffer in absence of teaching staff. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and argues that on administrative reasons, the petitioner has been transferred as there was no teachers available in the transferred school and as such, the petitioner was transferred so that the children of that school should not suffer in absence of teaching staff. However, it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that certain allegations were also leveled against the petitioner and inquiry was held in which petitioner was found to be guilty of the charges and as such, he justifies the order of transfer. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it is apparent from the impugned order itself that petitioner has been transferred on certain allegations and as such, the order impugned is not tenable in the eyes of law. In catena of decisions the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that no order of transfer can be issued if it is punitive in nature. It was open for the respondents to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner, if any allegation against the petitioner was found to be true. Admittedly, the transfer order is an incidence of service, which can’t be disputed by an employee and the employee has no right to stay at particular place, but in the instant case transfer order has been passed against the statutory provisions of law. The Court cannot shuts its eyes against such illegal transfer order, which is punitive in nature. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) has held as under :- “16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds—one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. Mala fide is of two kinds—one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” In the instant case, no vigilance enquiry was initiated against him. The order of transfer was passed on material which was not existent. The order, therefore, not only suffers from total non-application of mind but also suffers from malice in law and as such order dated 29.10.2016 is fit to be quashed and set aside. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby quash and set aside the order of transfer dated 29.10.2016. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstating him to original place, where petitioner was posted prior to the transfer order dated 29.10.2016. However, it is open for the respondents to pass an order of transfer and post any teacher in that particular school, where the petitioner was posted and where no teachers are available as on date. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.