JUDGMENT : In the instant petition, petitioner, serving as Superintendent Grade-II in Panchyati Raj Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, has assailed his impugned transfer order dated 25.9.2020 passed by Director Rural Development after considering representation of the petitioner in pursuance to judgment dated 1.9.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 2682 of 2020, titled Kamal Jeet Gupta Vs. State of H.P., whereby after quashing the earlier transfer order dated 23.7.2020 of petitioner and respondent No. 3, they were permitted to make representations to the Department to re-consider their transfer after giving them opportunity of hearing with further direction to maintain status quo qua posting of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 till decision by the Department. 2. Present petition is second round of litigation. Earlier transfer order dated 23.7.2020 was assailed by the petitioner on various grounds, including that he was transferred after short span of 5 months after his joining at present place of posting i.e. Nurpur in February, 2020 in pursuance to his transfer from Kangra to Nurpur vide order dated 18.2.2020 issued on his request on medical ground and also that the said transfer order (dated 23.7.2020) was issued on the basis of D.O. Note number Secretary-CM-17006/2017-VIP-A-221477, dated 20.6.2020 approved at the instance of local MLA, whereby he had recommended transfer of respondent No. 3 vice versa petitioner after condonation of short stay without any administrative or any other justifiable reason. The said transfer was quashed by the Court vide judgment dated 1.9.2020 passed in CWP No. 2682 of 2020. 3. Director Panchyati Raj after considering representations of petitioner and respondent No. 3, in sequel to order dated 1.9.2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, has maintained posting of respondent No. 3 at Nurpur, vide order dated 25.9.2020, whereas petitioner has been ordered to be transferred to Chamba. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 was accommodated on the basis of DO Note causing displacement of the petitioner from present place of posting within a short span of five months and the said transfer was quashed by the Court, but vide order dated 25.9.2020, the Director has again accommodated respondent No. 3, but has displaced the petitioner by posting him at a distant place, which indicates vindictive attitude of the respondents against the petitioner for approaching the Court for redressal of his grievances. Petitioner has placed on record recommendations made by local MLA on 18.6.2020 and D.O. Note dated 26.6.2020 issued in sequel thereto approving the transfer of respondent No. 3 vice versa petitioner from Dharamshala to Nurpur in relaxation of ban on transfer and also condonation of short stay of respondent No. 3. 5. Recommendations of Local MLA read as under:- “I shall be grateful if following transfers approved as under please :- 1. Sh. Manoj Kumar Supdtt. Grade-II presently working at Office DRDA Dharamshala Distt. Kangra may please be transferred to o/o B.D.O. Nurpur Distt. Kangra against Kamal Jeet Gupta Supdtt. Grade-II & vice versa. Short stay of both may please be condoned. 2. … … … …” 6. The approved note reads as under :- “Hon’ble Chief Minister has approved the following” Sh. Maonj Kumar, Supdt. Grade-II may be transferred without TTA/JT in condonation of short stay from O/o DRDA Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra to O/o BDO Nurpur, Distt. Kangra against Sh.Kamal Jeet Gupta, Supdt. Grade-II & vice-versa, in relaxation of ban on transfers. Director, Panchyati Raj & RD, Kasumpti, Shimla-9 is requested to take necessary action accordingly and report compliance.” 7. Record of the Department was summoned and perused. Undoubtedly, a public representative has a right to recommend for transfer of an employee for various reasons for public welfare and public interest as well as redressal of grievance of an employee, but it must not be a dictate to the Department. Any proposal recommended by public representative must be processed by the Department independently taking into consideration all facts and circumstances including suitability of posting, hardship to be faced by either employee and other factors like short stay. 8. Perusal of record reveals that in present case, it was proposed by local representative and approved by competent authority without any application of mind. Approval of transfer has not been considered by the Administrative Department at any stage. The same has been given effect without any application of mind with observation that it was communicated by the Additional Secretary that Hon’ble Chief Minister had approved the transfer. 9. In the record produced by the Department details of posting and transfer of petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 were also available, perusal whereof reveals that both of them, except for short periods, have served in and around their native or choice places, mainly in District Kangra. 9. In the record produced by the Department details of posting and transfer of petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 were also available, perusal whereof reveals that both of them, except for short periods, have served in and around their native or choice places, mainly in District Kangra. Both of them belong to State cadre but have served for maximum period in or around a particular area. It is claim of the petitioner that he was accommodated by the Department for his health problem, whereas, there is no explanation for accommodating and posting respondent No. 3 during his maximum tenure of his service in District Kangra. 10. Transfer of the petitioner ordered on the basis of DO Note was quashed by the Court. Thereafter, the Director has again posted respondent No. 3 on the same station by displacing petitioner and posting him at a distant place, which amounts to punishment to the petitioner for approaching the Court against his transfer on the basis of DO Note. 11. Therefore, I am of the considered view that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances impugned order dated 25.9.2020 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly impugned order dated 25.9.2020 is quashed. 12. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. Vide impugned order, the Director has given effect to the transfer approved on the basis of DO Note by maintaining the transfer order of respondent No. 3 as was ordered vide order dated 23.7.2020, approved at the instance of local public representative. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. 13. Without going into the issue of posting of petitioner as well as respondent No. 3, referred supra, impugned order is being interfered with mainly on the ground that vide this order respondent No. 3 has again been accommodated, on whose instance recommendation was made by public representative and on the basis of which DO note was approved and his transfer was ordered vice versa petitioner, whereas petitioner has been made to suffer to approach the Court on whose instance the Court had quashed earlier transfer order of respondent No. 3 and petitioner. 14. 14. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that petitioner is not adamant to remain at Nurpur only, but he would be satisfied in case he is posted in Development Block Bhatyat where post may be available on voluntary retirement of present incumbent Mr.Inder Singh Pathania posted there. In case Mr. Inder Singh is permitted to voluntarily retire and respondents-Department considers the petitioner and finds it suitable to post him at Bhatyat, then Department would also be at liberty to post respondent No. 3 at Nurpur, as in such eventuality transfer of petitioner from Nurpur will not amount punishment to him for approaching the Court for redressal of his grievance. 15 It is also made clear that respondent Authority is not precluded from transferring the petitioner or respondent No. 3 in consonance with law of the land and Transfer Policy, but in administrative exigency or in larger public interest, but not to accommodate one and to harass the other. 16. Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms and disposed of.