JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Jagdale, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, who appears by waiving notice. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. It is well settled law that while transfer made on the administrative ground simiplicitor warrants no interference from the Court of law, a transfer made vindictively and in order to teach a lesson to the employee under transfer, violates the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, reported at AIR 2009 SC 1399 . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no transfer can be made with a view to “punish the employee”. 4. Bearing in mind such settled law that one has to examine the tenor of the present transfer order dated 19-04-2018. This order states two reasons for effecting transfer of the petitioner. The first reason is that as the petitioner has obtained stay from the Labour Court against the respondent no.1, it became necessary for the Divisional Controller, Amravati i.e. respondent no.1, to make use of his transfer power given under Circular No. 03 of 2018 dated 22-02-2018. The second reason is of administrative exigency. The second reason appears to be only the camouflage to the first reason. The first reason, on the face of it, is illegal and speaks volumes of the vindictive attitude of the respondent no.1. It indicates that because the petitioner obtained stay against the respondent no.1, from the Court of law the respondent no.1 got annoyed and brazenly only made it a ground and reason for him to make use of his transfer power. Such an order, therefore, is patently illegal. It is full of malafides on the part of the respondent no.1 and so it must go. 5. Ordinarily, while quashing the impugned transfer order in such a case, this Court would have imposed costs upon the respondents, but, having considered the fact that there is also a circular issued by the Vice-Chairman-cum Managing Director of the Corporation for taking effective steps in order to curb the menace of Corruption, this time, this Court would refrain from imposing any costs upon the respondents. But that would not dilute the action malafidely taken by respondent no.1 against the petitioner and for this purpose, ends of justice would demand that if the petitioner has been relieved by now from his original posting, his posting is restored to him. 6. Apart from what is stated above, I find there is one more flaw in the impugned order. It takes resort to the power of transfer given under Circular dated 22-02-2018. A bare perusal of the Circular would show that the power of transfer has been given only for being exercised within the limits of jurisdiction of the concerned Divisional Controller and not for entering into the jurisdictional limits of the another Divisional Controller and for the latter case, what is required under this Circular, is a recommendation to be made by the concerned Divisional Controller to the head office of the Corporation for considering the proposal of transfer within the limits of the jurisdiction of another Divisional Controller. In the present case, there is a clear breach of these instructions given in this Circular as the part of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1, on the pretext of giving effect to the instructions contained in the Circular, has passed a transfer order exceeding his jurisdiction. He has transferred the petitioner working in Amravati Division to Buldhana Division which is under the supervision and control of some different Divisional Controller and certainly not the respondent no.1. In such a case, it was required of respondent no.1 to have made appropriate recommendation to the superior officer as per the Circular dated 22-02-2018. On this additional count, the action of respondent no.1 is found to be patently illegal smacking of malice on his part. The malice entertained by the respondent no.1 against the petitioner is obvious as respondent no.1 is prepared even to transgress the limits of his powers in his desire to teach a lesson to the petitioner. I think this would be a fit case for the Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation to take appropriate action against the respondent no.1 in the present case. In view of the above, I find that the impugned transfer order is patently illegal and it must go. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order is quashed and set aside. In view of the above, I find that the impugned transfer order is patently illegal and it must go. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order is quashed and set aside. If the petitioner has already been relieved from his present posting, the petitioner be restored to his same posting which he held prior to the issuance of the impugned order. However, the respondent no.1 is at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Corporation, within the limits of Amravati Division only. 8. The Registrar (J.) is requested to send the copy of this order to the Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation, Amravati, for taking appropriate action in the matter. 9. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.