JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J 1. The above cases have been taken up together as common questions of law and fact arise in these petitions and the transfer orders in all the cases are of the same date i.e. 4.9.2018, except Writ Petition no. 19283 of 2018 (Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), in which the date of the transfer order is 6.9.2018, therefore, the above writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 4.9.2018 and 6.9.2018 whereby they have been transferred to different places. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that all the petitioners are Excise Inspectors. Their case is that on 19.5.2018 about five persons died due to consumption of spurious liquor in the area of Sector 7, police station Sachedi District Kanpur Nagar and on 20.5.2018 four persons died due to consumption of spurious liquor in village Madhaipurwa and Balaitha Majra Madauli, police station Rura District Kanpur Nagar. A three member enquiry committee was appointed in which Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector was found guilty as he was posted at Sector 7, Kanpur Nagar. Thereafter a two member committee comprising the Joint Excise Commissioner, Agra Zone and Joint Excise Commissioner, Excise Intelligence Bureau submitted a report on 20.5.2018. The Assistant Excise Commissioner Enforcement Kanpur Division and his subordinate Excise Inspector Enforcement and District Excise Officer, Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat and Excise Inspector, Sector 7 and Excise Inspector of Circle-III, Kanpur Dehat were found guilty of dereliction of duty, the petitioners have not been held guilty, except petitioner-Avanish Kumar Pandey of writ petition no. 19281 of 2018, by the two members committee but it is stated that on 19.5.2018 some complaint was made against the petitioners by the wine mafia. It is stated that influenced by the reports submitted by the Excise Authorities an order was passed on 4.9.2018 transferring a large number of persons including the petitioners to different places. Their case is that the orders of transfer do not mention that they are in public interest rather considering the circumstances in which the transfers have been effected, it appears that they have been passed by way of punishment which cannot be countenanced and if the petitioners were guilty of dereliction of their duties then a proper disciplinary enquiry should have been conducted against them. 4. 4. We have heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vijay Gautam for the petitioners and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Shri Prashant Mathur, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State and in the counter affidavit an inspection report has been filed at page 21 to 26 of the counter affidavit. 6. The submission of Shri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel was that the transfer orders of the petitioners is the fall out of an incident which occurred on 19.5.2018/20.5.2018 in which some persons died due to consumption of spurious liquor. It is stated that all the petitioners in the above writ petitions have been subjected to transfer enmasse without there being any enquiry conducted by the respondents into the involvement of the individual petitioners in any act of omission or commission which may have led to the death of certain persons due to consumption of spurious liquor in Sachedi and Rura in Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat. His submission is that the transfer orders do not even mention that they are in administrative interest. He further submits that the petitioners have not completed three years service in Kanpur Nagar and therefore their transfer prior to completion of three years is violative of paragraph 11 (vi) of the Transfer Policy dated 29.3.2018 which provides that a Group B employee should be transferred every three years. His submission is that these transfers are due to the reason that certain persons died due to consumption of spurious liquor and, therefore, the transfers cannot be said to be transfer simpliciter or transfer in administrative interest “rather it is a transfer by way of punishment” without holding any enquiry against the petitioners. 7. Shri Manish Goyal, learned Addl. Advocate General, on the other hand, drew the attention of the court to the report, page 21 to 26 of the counter affidavit, which is identical in all the cases and submitted that this report refers to both Sacheda and Rura and mentions that in Sacheda, Kanpur Nagar an incident occurred on 19.5.2018 in which five persons died and in Rura, Kanpur Dehat on 20.5.2018 in which four persons died due to consumption of spurious liquor and 11 persons have been admitted in different Hospitals in the city. With regard to the incident which occurred in Sacheda on 19.5.2018 it is mentioned in the enquiry report that it was informed by the residents of the village that the liquor was being manufactured illegally in the nearby Unnao distillery and that as soon as the owner of the shop came to know that certain persons had died and some others had fallen seriously ill due to consumption of this liquor, he started throwing the packets (pauwwa) of liquor into a ditch which was later set on fire by him to destroy the evidence. When the inspection team reached the spot they recovered remains of half burnt packets on which it was mentioned 'Madhuri' brand with batch label No. 442 relating to Unnao distillery. On enquiries made through the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Unnao it was found that in the Unnao distillery for the year 2018-19 country liquor was being filled and packed in the batch no. 109. So far as the incident occurred on 19.5.2018 in villages Dool, Hetpur, Bhool and Surar situated in Sachedi, Kanpur Nagar, there also the packets (pauwwa) which were recovered bore the label of “Madhuri brand” the label batch No. 442. On enquiry it was also found that in the country liquor shop spurious liquor of 'Madhuri' brand batch No. 442 was being supplied by one Vinay Singh resident of Rura village who was a relative of an ex M.L.A. and whose activities were also previously noted to be suspicious. In the enquiry report it is also mentioned that one Shri Santosh Kumar has mentioned in his statement that he is the owner of the building in which the country liquor shop was being run. He has also stated that in village Dool, the owner of the country liquor shop was Shyam Balak but upto 4.5.2018 the shop was being managed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav and from 4.5.2018 onward the shop was again taken back by Shyam Balak and was being run and managed by Shyam Balak. One Vimal was stationed at the shop as sales man. He has also stated that at present the shop is being run by Shyam Balak and Vinay Singh resident of village Rura. 8. One Vimal was stationed at the shop as sales man. He has also stated that at present the shop is being run by Shyam Balak and Vinay Singh resident of village Rura. 8. Chandra Bhan who has also consumed the same liquor and had fallen ill and later recovered stated before the enquiry committee that the cap of the packets (pauwwa) was loose and it was smelling of something different other than that of original liquor. One another witness Shri Ram Khelawan resident of Sachedi village Dool stated that the liquor packets purchased by him did not bear any label and that its cap was not tight but liquor was not leaking from the packets. 9. The enquiry committee found that Avanish Pandey, Excise Inspector, Sector 8 sealed the liquor shop and before that he also collected samples of country liquor and cartons containing the liquor packets and stickers mentioning track and trace system, which were pasted on it, were also collected and sent the same to Forensic Laboratory and, thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged in police station Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar. 10. In the report it has been mentioned that Avanish Kumar Pandey, Excise Inspector, Sector -8 took charge of Sector 7, Kanpur Nagar on 18.1.2018 under the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise of the same date. Thereafter under the orders of Dy. Excise Commissioner, Kanpur dated 21.3.2018 one Shri Sanjay Kumar Vidyarthi, Excise Inspector, Sector-I, Kanpur Nagar took additional charge of Sector 7 because of his effective work and conduct. Thereafter, under the orders of the Commissioner, Excise dated 30.1.2018 the additional charge of Sector 7 Kanpur Nagar was given to Shri Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector, SSFA, Kanpur Charge. Thereafter dividing the task of Inspector of distillery in three shifts under the orders of the Excise Commissioner, U.P., Shri Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector, SSFA Kanpur was attached to the Unnao distillery, Unnao until further orders and Shri Sanjay Kumar Vidyarthi, Sector 1, Kanpur Nagar was again posted in Sector 7, Kanpur Nagar. Thereafter the Commissioner, Excise by his order dated 3.4.2018 canceled his earlier order of 20.3.2018 of attachment of Shri Manish Kumar and in his place Shri Anurag Singh-I, Excise Inspector SSFA, Kanpur Charge was attached to the Unnao Distillery, Unnao. Thereafter Shri Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector SSFA, Kanpur Charge again took charge of Sector 7 Kanpur Nagar w.e.f. 18.4.2018. Thereafter the Commissioner, Excise by his order dated 3.4.2018 canceled his earlier order of 20.3.2018 of attachment of Shri Manish Kumar and in his place Shri Anurag Singh-I, Excise Inspector SSFA, Kanpur Charge was attached to the Unnao Distillery, Unnao. Thereafter Shri Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector SSFA, Kanpur Charge again took charge of Sector 7 Kanpur Nagar w.e.f. 18.4.2018. On 12.5.2018 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Excise Inspector was posted in Sector 7 regularly. The report therefore concluded that the incident of deaths due to consumption of spurious liquor on 19.5.2018 and 20.5.2018 occurred due to the negligence and dereliction of duty of the Higher Officers and Excise Inspectors posted in Sector 7 in failing to discharge their duties. The inspection report therefore prima-facie found Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Dy. Excise Commissioner, Kanpur Charge, Kanpur, Shri Abhimanyu Pratap Singh, District Excise Officer, Kanpur Nagar, Shri Hemant Kumar Choudhary, District Excise Officer, Kanpur Dehat and Shri Rajeev Sinha, Assistant Excise Commissioner, Enforcement, Kanpur Charge guilty and recommended for taking stringent action against the above officers and it also recommended that all the Excise Inspectors posted in Sector 7 in District Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat as well as Head Excise Constables and Excise Constables be transferred. 11. Shri Manish Goyal, Addl. Advocate General referring to the inspection report submitted that the petitioners who were posted as Excise Inspectors had failed to check the batch label of the liquor packets or its contents or even to find out as to how it came to be manufactured in the Unnao Distillery and from where did the 'Madhuri Brand' come, and if they had taken prompt measures to check the manufacturing of spurious liquor or even the supply thereof and its batch label the unfortunate incident in which large number of persons died due to consumption of spurious liquor could have been avoided but because they failed to take appropriate action during their tenure at the relevant place, therefore, they are prima-facie responsible for the deaths which occurred. 12. 12. In sub paragraph (vii) of paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that in order to make sure that the image of Excise Department does not suffer damage and in order to assuage the feelings of anguish amongst the residents in and around Sector-8 Kanpur Nagar it was necessary that the petitioners who were posted in the aforementioned Sector -8 for a considerably long period be transferred and therefore in terms of the Transfer Policy, the recommendation for transfer of the petitioners was made by the competent authority to the concerned Minister which was endorsed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. He also submitted that Ms. Vandana Singh has already joined in place of the petitioner-Avanish Kumar Pandey of W.P. No. 19281 of 2018 on 6.9.2018 and therefore her rights would be adversely affected if any orders are passed in this writ petition and therefore she should be impleaded in the writ petition and be issued a notice and be heard and the writ petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. He has also relied upon a judgment of this court passed in Service Single No. 12932 of 2018 (Arun Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others). 13. We will take up the issue of non joinder of necessary parties and the application of the judgment of Arun Kumar Mishra (supra) first. So far as the contention of the respondents that the writ petition is bad for non joinder of Ms. Vandana Mishra is concerned, in our opinion the plea has absolutely no basis or substance for the reason that the petitioner is challenging the order of their own transfers on the ground that the same are illegal and in a case of transfer Ms. Vandana Mishra has absolutely no right to be heard because her transfer and posting in place of the petitioner is a consequence of the initial order of transfer of the petitioners. In a matter of transfer no government servant can insist where he/she should be posted and this applies to the petitioner as also to Ms. Vandana Mishra. Transfer or posting to a particular place of choice of the government servant is neither a fundamental right nor it flows from any statutory Rules, Regulations or G.O. To what place a government servant should be transferred or posted is the sole prerogative of the State Government. Ms. Vandana Mishra. Transfer or posting to a particular place of choice of the government servant is neither a fundamental right nor it flows from any statutory Rules, Regulations or G.O. To what place a government servant should be transferred or posted is the sole prerogative of the State Government. Ms. Vandana Mishra has no vested right to be heard or to raise any objection in a petition filed by the petitioners challenging their own transfer. We therefore reject the plea of the respondents that the writ petition for non joinder of Vandana Mishra in the array of respondents is bad in law. 14. Coming to the second aspect with regard to the application of the judgment of this court in the case of Arun Kumar Mishra (supra) we notice that the question in that case was with regard to the competence of the Governor or a Minister passing an order of transfer. There is absolutely no quarrel on the legal preposition that the Minister being the Executive Head of his Ministry or in the case of the Governor being the Executive Head of the Government who acts on the aid and advise of the Chief Minister and his council of Ministers is fully empowered to transfer a government servant from one place to another. However, these questions do not arise in the present writ petition at all and even if, such a plea has been raised by the petitioner it is only to be rejected. 15. Coming to the merits of the allegations of the petitioners that the order of transfer is by way of punishment and not a transfer simplicitor, we have seen the enquiry report of the Committee headed by the Principal Secretary and the Special Secretary. The report itself records that first Avanish Kumar Pandey, Excise Inspector was posted in Sector-7, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 18.1.2018. Thereafter, by an order dated 23.1.2018, Sri Sanjay Kumar Vidhyarthi, Excise Inspector who was posted in Sector-1 Kanpur Nagar was given additional charge of Sector-7, Kanpur Nagar. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.1.2018, Sri Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector who was posted in SSF-A Kanpur was given additional charge of Sector-7, Kanpur Nagar. Thereafter, by an order dated 23.1.2018, Sri Sanjay Kumar Vidhyarthi, Excise Inspector who was posted in Sector-1 Kanpur Nagar was given additional charge of Sector-7, Kanpur Nagar. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.1.2018, Sri Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector who was posted in SSF-A Kanpur was given additional charge of Sector-7, Kanpur Nagar. Thereafter, by an order dated 20.03.2018, the deputation of Sri Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector in Sector-7 was cancelled and in his place Sri Anurag Singh-I, Excise Inspector was attached in the Unnao Distillery and Sri Manish Kumar, Excise Inspector was posted in Sector-7, Kanpur Nagar on 18.4.2018 and he took over charge on the same date. On 12.5.2018, Sri Kuldeep Singh, Excise Inspector was posted regularly in Sector-7, Kanpur Nagar. The report does not indicate that all these Excise Inspectors, including the petitioners were posted in Sector-7 at the same time. No Government Order or Rules have been placed by the respondents to show that more that one Excise Inspector can be posted in one sector and even if, there is such a Government Order whether in the present case one or more of the petitioners were posted in Sector-7 at the same point of time. In fact the report indicates that the persons who have been mentioned therein as having being posted in Sector-7 or Unnao Distillery from 18.1.2018 till 12.5.2018 were interchanged under different orders among themselves. 16. The enquiry report further mentions that in Kanpur Nagar, Thana Sachendi and Kanpur Dehat, Thana Rura when the team conducted inspection and met the family of the deceased persons, they were informed by the relatives that Inspectors or Officers of the Excise Department never conducted any inspection in their village. This is a serious allegation. If relying upon these statements, the Committee has recommended that the incident prima facie occurred due to the negligence of the Excise Officer and Excise Inspectors and that the Excise Inspectors along with others should have been transferred enmasse, they should have been confronted with the statements of the villagers and be given an opportunity to show what had actually happened during inspection. The enquiry report does not anywhere mention that the petitioner of this writ petition or the others did not conduct any inspection at all during their tenure. The enquiry report does not anywhere mention that the petitioner of this writ petition or the others did not conduct any inspection at all during their tenure. What we find is that because certain persons have died due to consumption of spurious liquor, it has been assumed that there has been negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of all the Excise Inspectors posted in Kanpur Nagar, Thana Sachendi and Kanpur Dehat, Thana Rura. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the version of the respondents that the order of transfer was a transfer simplicitor or that it was non-stigmatic and that it should be justified only to maintain the image of the department or the Government and to assuage the feelings of anguish of the residents in and around Sector-8, Kanpur Nagar. In the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that the petitioner Avanish Kumar Pandey of W.P. No. 19281 of 2018 was posted in Sector 8 for a considerable long period whereas throughout in the inspection report, the Sector has been referred to as Sector-7. The counter affidavit and the report of the Committee sing a discordant tune. 17. We may also note that except the name of Avanish Kumar Pandey, the petitioner of W.P. No. 19281 of 2018 and Kuldeep Singh, the petitioner of W.P. No. 19283 of 2018, the names of other petitioners do not find mention in the enquiry report dated 25.5.2018. 18. As we have already noted above, nothing has been shown to us that the duties of an Excise Inspector of one Sector could overlap another Sector and if that was so, where was the necessity of posting the petitioners at different points of time in Sector-7. In the case of Avanish Kumar Pandey, the petitioner of W.P. No. 19281 of 2018, the enquiry report does not demonstrate that he was given the additional charge of Sector-8 as well as Sector-7 and in any case, his tenure appears to have been from 18.1.2018 till Sanjay Kumar Vidhyarthi joined Sector-7 under the order dated 23.1.2018 by way of an additional charge. Same is the case with the other Inspectors. Same is the case with the other Inspectors. The very fact that the respondents admit that the petitioners were being transferred only to maintain the image of the department and to assuage the feelings of anguish among the residents in and around Sector-7, Kanpur Nagar or Circle-1, Kanpur Dehat shows that the order of transfer was not in administrative interest nor was it an order of transfer simplicitor but it was a transfer on allegations prima facie of dereliction of duty and negligence as held by the enquiry committee in its report dated 25.5.2018. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs Union of India And Others, (2009) 2 SCC 592 , in paragraph 16 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. 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." 20. As we have already noted, the persons whose names have been mentioned in para 12 of the report dated 25.5.2018 including the two petitioners working in SSFA or Circle Rura or in other Sectors, they have been deputed to work in Sector -7. As we have already noted, the persons whose names have been mentioned in para 12 of the report dated 25.5.2018 including the two petitioners working in SSFA or Circle Rura or in other Sectors, they have been deputed to work in Sector -7. We have also noted that nothing has been shown to us by way of Rule or Government Order or Regulation to show that an Excise Inspector posted in one Sector can also hold the charge of another Sector unless there is a specific order to that effect directing him to hold additional charge and it has also not been shown that one Circle consists of one or more Sectors in a particular District. 21.For reasons aforesaid, we hold that the orders of transfer dated 4.9.2018 and the order dated 6.9.2018 are absolutely illegal and invalid being by way of punishment and therefore, the same cannot survive and are accordingly, quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioners. 22. The writ petitions are allowed.