JUDGMENT : 1. By virtue of order dated 10.11.2016 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Electric M & RE Circle, Kishtwar, it was directed that the petitioner, who was posted as Technical Officer to Executive Engineer Sub-Transmission Division, Doda shall additionally hold the charge of Technical Officer to Executive Engineer EM&RE Division Doda on purely temporary basis till such time, an Assistant Executive Engineer (T.O to Executive Engineer) was posted there. 2. The aforesaid arrangement, however, came to be discontinued by virtue of order impugned dated 29.7.2017 passed by the Chief Engineer, Elect. Maintt. & R.E. Wing, Jammu. The basis of discontinuing the arrangement appears to be a letter written by the Executive Engineer EM&RE Division Doda, informing the Chief Engineer that the petitioner was not attending his office regularly due to over burden of his duties thereby affecting the work of the office. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order impugned was passed for malafide reasons inasmuch as the petitioner had resisted the Executive Engineer’s efforts in forcing him to conduct certain misdemeanors in the past in his official functioning. 4. It is stated that the aforesaid officer had been shielding a store officer working under him and further that the petitioner was being pressurized to sign certain bills, which ought not to have been cleared. Letters in this regard are on record wherein the petitioner appears to have informed the Executive Engineer EM&RE Division Doda-respondent no. 3 herein. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. From the material on record, it appears that the petitioner was holding the additional charge as Technical Officer to Executive Engineer EM&RE Division Doda purely on temporary basis in addition to holding the post of Technical Officer to Executive Engineer Sub-Transmission Division Doda. Although the petitioner has tried to carve out a case based upon malafides yet, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot claim any indefeasible right to hold the additional charge as Technical Officer and the allegation that due to over burden, the petitioner was not attending his office regularly, cannot be discarded. 7. In a given situation, where the petitioner had been leveling allegations against his superior officer, the Executive EM&RE Division Doda accusing him of being hand in glove with store keeper, there were only two possibilities: (i) to remove the Executive Engineer or (ii) to remove the technical officer holding the additional charge. 8. 7. In a given situation, where the petitioner had been leveling allegations against his superior officer, the Executive EM&RE Division Doda accusing him of being hand in glove with store keeper, there were only two possibilities: (i) to remove the Executive Engineer or (ii) to remove the technical officer holding the additional charge. 8. In the present case, the Chief Engineer has accepted the plea of the Executive Engineer EM&RE Division, Doda and has relieved the petitioner of the additional charge as Technical Officer. In such a situation, in my opinion, what the Chief Engineer did was, in fact, in the interest of administration. 9. The allegations levelled by the petitioner against the Executive Engineer may also be true but for that the forum may be different. In case, the petitioner feels that there has been any wrong doing in the office of the Executive Engineer, he would also be under an obligation to bring it to the notice of his superiors or the concerned agencies in that regard. For the present, based only on the letters, which are on record, containing allegations against private respondent No. 3, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue with the additional charge as Technical officer. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for interference. 10. The petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected MP.