JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Challenging the impugned order dated 31.12.2016, whereby petitioner has been transferred from the post of Executive Engineer, Koderma to the post of Executive Engineer, NREP, Sahebganj, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 2. Before adverting to merit of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards order dated 01.05.2017, wherein this Court taking into account the manner in which the affidavit has been sworn and respondents have placed the case, issued notice to respondent no. 2 as to why a recommendation for departmental proceeding for dereliction of duty be not made against him. On merit of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the fag end of service career just before three months from his retirement, the petitioner was transferred, which is punitive in nature and is bad in law as at the relevant point of time there was no complaint or any punishment order was staring at the petitioner. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner with all his fairness submitted that now the petitioner has retired from services, hence, nothing remains to be adjudicated, but, questioned the manner in which the respondents have placed the case. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true that certain complaints were received regarding inferior quality of work being carried out under the supervision of petitioner and even OSD to Hon'ble Chief Minister has also forwarded one complaint received from the residents of Koderma. But, the department taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was at the fag end of his service and adopting a lenient view decided not to initiate any proceeding against the petitioner, hence, no show cause on the charge of dereliction of duty could be taken. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the concerned respondent no. 2 tenders unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the Court. 4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits and materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner has retired from services on 31.03.2017, hence, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case. 5. However, before parting with the order, this Court deprecates the action of the respondents, in particular respondent no. 4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits and materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner has retired from services on 31.03.2017, hence, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this case. 5. However, before parting with the order, this Court deprecates the action of the respondents, in particular respondent no. 2 in view of the fact that even the statement made by respondents is taken to be true and had there been any complaint against the petitioner, the respondents-authorities ought to have issued show cause notice to the petitioner or ought to have initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner but in the case at hand, without resorting to remedy available the respondents have transferred the petitioner, which is punitive in nature and not countenanced in service jurisprudence. 6. However, since the petitioner has now retired, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as being infructuous.