JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.03.2018, as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, W.P.No.13064/2018 Bengaluru Bench ('the Tribunal') in Original Application (OA) No.170/00167/2018. The petitioner herein had preferred the OA aforesaid while questioning the order of her transfer dated 07.03.2018. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner was posted as the Deputy Commissioner of Hassan District by an order dated 12.07.2017. She was sought to be transferred under Notification No.DPAR/31/SAS/ 2018 dated 22.01.2018. This Notification dated 22.01.2018 proposing to transfer the petitioner as also some other Deputy Commissioners to different places was, however, ordered to be kept on hold by the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, under his letter dated 23.01.2018. Later on, the Election Commission of India, under its Communication dated 05.02.2018, observed that the transfer of the Deputy Commissioners and District Election Officers during the process of revision of electoral rolls would adversely affect the electoral process and hence, it was directed that the transfer of such Deputy Commissioners and District Election Officers (including the petitioner) be withdrawn immediately. W.P.No.13064/2018 Thereafter, the State Government kept in abeyance the said transfer order dated 22.01.2018 by its order dated 16.02.2018. However, the petitioner had challenged the aforesaid transfer order dated 22.01.2018 before the Tribunal by way of an OA bearing No.170/00103/2018. During the pendency of the said OA, the order of transfer of the petitioner was withdrawn on 05.03.2018 and hence, the OA was dismissed as infructuous on 06.03.2018. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 was issued by the respondents, transferring the petitioner from the post of Deputy Commissioner, Hassan to the post of Commissioner, Department of Employment and Training, Bengaluru. The petitioner preferred another OA questioning the aforesaid transfer order dated 07.03.2018. This OA bearing No.170/00167/2018 has been decided by the Tribunal by way of the impugned order dated 21.03.2018. The entire of the order impugned, on its contents, reads as under: "Surely some oracle has been with me. The gods have chosen me to reveal their plan To warn and unjust judge of destiny: I, slumbering, heard and saw; awake I know, W.P.No.13064/2018 Christ's coming death, and Pilate's life of woe. The entire of the order impugned, on its contents, reads as under: "Surely some oracle has been with me. The gods have chosen me to reveal their plan To warn and unjust judge of destiny: I, slumbering, heard and saw; awake I know, W.P.No.13064/2018 Christ's coming death, and Pilate's life of woe. I do not weep for Pilate-who could prove Regret for him whose cold and crushing sway No prayer can soften, no appeal can move; Charlotte Bronte. Adjudication is always a bed of thorns and the great poetess Charlotte Bronte while epitomizing the woe of Pontius Pilate's wife when he started to judge Jesus has expressed his anguish. Such dilemma we also face now. 2. A young officer challenges her transfer. She raises many grounds in support of her claim. Her employer raises many objections against the same. We had the honour and benefit of hearing the great Senior Lawyer Shri Subramanya Jois on the subject. We also had the benefit of hearing brilliant Additional Advocate General Shri A.S. Ponnanna on the subject. We also very carefully gone through the detailed written argument notes submitted by Shri Subramanya Jois and Shri Mahanthesh. We had also gone through the lament of the 3rd respondent represented by Shri Joshi who had portrayed the grievance of that young man finding himself nowhere as the post he had occupied has been occupied by someone else and he has nowhere to go. 3. We realize that it is really a bed of thorns to adjudicate this matter. However we had decided to adjudicate in the larger interest of all including the applicant and others equally concerned. We note with some regret that apparently the transfer orders may have been passed in some hurry. The order lacks elements of proper application of mind but at the same time unless political executive as distinct from administrative executive, being the repository of the trust of people, are allowed to act within their allotted sphere of activities demography and democracy will lose its meaning. It might be a repeat situation of what happened in Rome very clearly portrayed by Gibbon in his classic work Rise and Fall of Roman Empire. W.P.No.13064/2018 Failure of Roman Senate lead way for dismemberment of Roman Empire. We quite naturally would like to avoid a similar feat for our nation. 4. It might be a repeat situation of what happened in Rome very clearly portrayed by Gibbon in his classic work Rise and Fall of Roman Empire. W.P.No.13064/2018 Failure of Roman Senate lead way for dismemberment of Roman Empire. We quite naturally would like to avoid a similar feat for our nation. 4. While we emphasize the need for judicial independence, we feel that we must also uphold the element of administrative independence as well. Taking all these into consideration, we have now decided that we will now permit the applicant to submit a representation before the Chief Secretary within the next 2 days which will be an appeal against her transfer citing her reasons. Within the next 2 days the Chief Secretary will pass an appropriate order and forward it to her. That we think would satisfy our quest for justice. Taking a long range view, we are guided by the fact that the applicant is very young and has a long way to go. Therefore this resolution might suit her better in the years to come. The OA is therefore disposed as above. 5. At this point of time learned senior counsel Shri Subramanya Jois submits that the applicant may need a little more time, i.e., time upto Monday, 26th March, 2018 to submit her representation and within a reasonable time the Chief Secretary may be directed to dispose of her representation. We allow it. Therefore we will amend it and direct the Chief Secretary to dispose of the representation within 3 days next. Till then status quo will be maintained. 6. The OA stands disposed of No order as to costs." Questioning the order aforesaid, the learned Senior Counsel Shri H. Subramanya Jois appearing for the petitioner has, at the outset, contended that the order impugned cannot be said to be an order at all because neither the contentions W.P.No.13064/2018 of the parties have been taken note of nor the issues involved have been adjudicated by the Tribunal. The learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna appearing for respondent No.1-State has, though, attempted to defend the action of the State, but could not deny the position that in the order impugned, the contentions of the parties have not gone into the process of adjudication. The learned Additional Advocate General, Shri A.S. Ponnanna appearing for respondent No.1-State has, though, attempted to defend the action of the State, but could not deny the position that in the order impugned, the contentions of the parties have not gone into the process of adjudication. The learned counsel, Shri Gururaj Joshi, appearing for respondent No.3 also does not dispute the position that the contentions of the parties have not gone into the process of adjudication in the order impugned; but would submit that in the wake of this dispute, the respondent no.3 is rather left in a lurch inasmuch as he has been relieved from the earlier post held by him as Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, but he is not in a position to join in place of the present petitioner. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we find it difficult to uphold the order dated 21.03.2018 for the fundamental reason that all the submissions of the parties do not appear to have gone into the process of W.P.No.13064/2018 adjudication. Though the Tribunal has adopted the course of directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Chief Secretary; has also directed the Chief Secretary to dispose of the representation at the earliest; and has further ordered status quo to be maintained till the time permitted therefor, but it is difficult to find the reasons for adopting such a course and for not entering into the other issues raised by the parties. For what has been observed hereinabove, we do not find it necessary or even proper to enter into the contentions sought to be urged by the parties on the merits of the case, which, in our view, ought to acquire the requisite attention of the Tribunal in the first place; and for this purpose, the OA in question deserves to be restored for reconsideration of the Tribunal. Having regard to the circumstances, we are also of the view that the status quo as existing on the date of filing of OA and until now, where the petitioner is said to be continuing as the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, ought to be maintained until final disposal of the matter by the Tribunal. Having regard to the circumstances, we are also of the view that the status quo as existing on the date of filing of OA and until now, where the petitioner is said to be continuing as the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, ought to be maintained until final disposal of the matter by the Tribunal. W.P.No.13064/2018 Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated; the impugned order dated 21.03.2018 is set aside; and O.A.No.170/00167/2018 is restored for reconsideration by the Tribunal, in accordance with law. Until final disposal of the OA aforesaid, status quo, as existing on the date of filing of the OA and as existing today, as regards posting of the petitioner shall be maintained. In other words, the petitioner, who is continuing as the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, shall continue to hold the said post until final disposal of the OA by the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, it is also provided that this order and the pendency of the said OA shall, otherwise, not be of any impediment in the official respondents taking appropriate decision as regards the posting of respondent No.3, who may be posted to any other post at any other place, subject to the decision of the OA, and if so considered appropriate. Until then, he shall continue as 'awaiting posting order' at Mysuru. W.P.No.13064/2018 The parties, through their respective counsel, shall stand at notice to appear before the Tribunal on 02.04.2018. No costs.