JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shadab bin hauqe, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Awanish Shankar, the learned AC to AAG-I appearing for the respondent State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the reasoned order dated 11.10.2019 and for quashing the transfer order dated 26.07.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Referral Hospital, Raj Dhanwar, Giridih to Primary Health Centre, Giddhor, Chatra. 4. Mr. Shadab bin haque, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer on 01.04.2012 by the State Government through a competitive examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The petitioner was posted as Medical Officer at Referral Hospital, Raj Dhanwar, where he assumed charge on 01.04.2012 and continued till 17.07.2016. The petitioner was transferred to RINPAS, Ranchi vide notification dated 29.06.2016 and further on representation filed by the petitioner the respondents after due consideration again transferred the petitioner from RINPAS, Ranchi to Referral Hospital, Raj Dhanwar vide notification dated 21.06.2017, this transferred was made on the ground of posting of the petitioner's wife as veterinary doctor at Raj Dhanwar, Giridih. He further submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.3955 of 2019 which was disposed of by order dated 17.08.2019 directing the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent authority showing the rule on which he is relying and in turn the respondent will take a decision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. He further submits that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation before the respondents and by the impugned order contained at Annexure-5, the representation of the petitioner has been dismissed. 5. He assailed the impugned order on the ground that this transfer order is punitive in nature. He further refers to paragraph-3 of Annexure-5 and submits that there is an allegation against the petitioner that because of negligent act of the petitioner, the image and reputation of the hospital becomes deteriorated. 5. He assailed the impugned order on the ground that this transfer order is punitive in nature. He further refers to paragraph-3 of Annexure-5 and submits that there is an allegation against the petitioner that because of negligent act of the petitioner, the image and reputation of the hospital becomes deteriorated. He further submits that without any show cause or providing any opportunity of hearing this transfer order has been passed. He submits that the High Court generally does not interfere with the transfer order if it is due to administrative exigency or routine transfer but, the fact of the case suggests that the order of transfer has been passed which is punitive in nature. He further draws the attention of the Court to paragraph no.15 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner tried to join at Chatra and submitted his joining before Civil Surgeon, Chatra on 10.01.2020 but he has not been allowed to work by Civil Surgeon, Chatra as the petitioner himself cannot start working at the place of posting, i.e., Giddhor. He further draws the attention of the Court to paragraph no.16 of the said rejoinder and submits that the petitioner also tried to get the relieving order from the Medical Officer Incharge, Rajdhanwar but no arrangement was made for taking over of charge at Rajdhanwar from the petitioner and for his reliving for Chatra inspite of requests made on 21.11.2019 and 28.11.2019 contained at Annexure-5 series. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India” reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 . Paragraph no.16 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “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. 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. 6. Mr. Awanish Shankar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that this is a routine transfer in view of Annexure-1 and in that view of the matter, the High Court may not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that pursuant to earlier order of this Court, the petitioner was directed to file representation before the authority concerned and they were directed to pass a reasoned order. The petitioner filed a representation which was decided by order dated 11.10.2019 contained in Annexure-5. In paragraph no.3 of the said reasoned order there is certain allegation against the petitioner and for the allegation there is no show cause to the petitioner. Annexure-1 is dated 26.07.2019 and the reasoned order has been passed thereafter dated 11.10.2019 pursuant to the order of this Court wherein certain allegation is made against the petitioner whereby it transpires that the order passed by the authority concerned is punitive in nature. It is further disclosed in the rejoinder at paragraph no.15 and 16 whereby it transpires that the petitioner is not being allowed to join at Chatra. This fact has not been denied by the respondent State. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India” (supra), 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 allegation made against the petitioner in the anonymous complaint. 8. 8. As a cumulative effect of above discussions, the transfer order cannot sustain in the eye of law and accordingly, the impugned orders dated 11.10.2019 and 26.07.2019 so far as petitioner is concerned are quashed. 9. The writ petition [W.P. (S) No. 5649 of 2019] stands disposed of. 10. Since, this matter has been taken up and in that view of the matter I.A. No.4188 of 2020 has become infructuous.