JUDGMENT : AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. 1. As noticed in the order dated 20.07.2017, the petitioner has challenged his transfer from Gurugram to Panchkula, it being his 5th transfer within 2 ½ years. 2. A written statement in reply to the petition, on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3, has been filed in Court today by learned State counsel, giving therein various reasons as to why the petitioner was transferred from one place to the other within a short span of two years, the reasoning by and large being that he having been charge sheeted once for alleged connivance in allowing illegal liquor booths / illicit liquor to be sold, he has now eventually been transferred to Panchkula. 3. Though undoubtedly there is only one charge sheet shown to have been issued to the petitioner after which he has been transferred 4-5 times from different places, with learned State counsel submitting that he was placed under suspension, the specific stand of the respondents is that it is not in administrative interest to post the petitioner to Gurugram. 4. This Court would not interfere in the matter, the petitioner being on a sensitive post of Excise Inspector, and consequently this petition is dismissed, with a direction that the petitioner now be not posted out of Panchkula against the transfer policy, unless there are specific charges against him, for which obviously proceedings would be taken as per law.