JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.1.1999 and the order dated 26.10.1998 and 24.11.1998. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the transfer order dated 22.12.1998.
2. The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 42224 of 1998 which has been disposed of by this Court by directing that the petitioner may make a representation before the authority concerned vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Consequently, the petitioner made a representation which was rejected by order dated 12.1.1999 Annexure-1 to the petition.
3. The petitioner was employed in the service of the O.N.G.C. and he is aggrieved against the impugned transfer order. His allegation is that the transfer order is mala fide and at the behest of respondent No. 8 Sri S. H. A. Jafri, General Manager. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it has been alleged that when the petitioner was posted in Keshav Dev Malviya Institute at Dehradun. a complaint was made by the Head of the Institute against the petitioner because of his indiscipline and insubordination and misbehaviour with superiors. He made several complaints against Sri Kuldeep Chandra. who was Head of the Institute and Dr. Anil Garg who was Deputy Superintending Chemist. The petitioner created serious problems against these officials and fought with other colleagues in the S.E.M. Department. Eleven officers reported about his misbehaviour to Sri Jafri. In these complaints, it was alleged that the petitioner indulges in misbehaviour and abuses. True copies of the complaints are Annexures-C.A. 1 to C.A. 11 to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, it is alleged that on 3.8.1998 the petitioner fought with Dr. Sajid Jamal, Superintending Chemist during the course of meeting in the office of the General Manager and a written complaint was made by Dr. Sajid Jamal against the petitioner. The Superintending chemist Mr. Negi reported that he cannot control the petitioner and hence the petitioner was directed by Sri Jafri to report directly to him. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner started moving files against the General Manager. Sri Jafri and made a press, statement against him. True copy of the press statement is Annexure-C.A. 12 to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, it is alleged that the petitioner started making false complaint against the General Manager to various authorities of the O.N.G.C. and has prayed for vigilance enquiry against Sri Jafri. The Vigilance Department wrote to the Director Technical that no case for enquiry is made out against Sri Jafri. Sri Jafri requested the Director Technical to send the petitioner back to his parent department (Exploration). The matter was discussed by the three Directors, i.e., Director Technical. Director Exploration and Director Personnel and all the three Directors took a decision to remove the petitioner from S.E.M. Group for a temporary posting to the Institute of Drilling Technology at Dehradun with a clear understanding that he may be considered for transfer in the annual general transfer. True copy of the same is Annexure-C.A. 13 to the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 10, it is stated that on 2.12.1998, the Director Technical has instituted an enquiry against the various charges of misconduct committed by the petitioner vide Annexure 14 to the counter-affidavit. It is alleged in paragraph 11 that despite his transfer to his parent department, the petitioner kept on working against Sri Jafri and this fact was brought to the notice of the competent authority by Sri Jafri vide Annexure-C.A. 15. Sri C. V. S. Negi, Superintendent Chemist submitted a report against the petitioner dated 2.9.1998 vide Annexure-16. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has been transferred in the annual general transfer on the decision of the three Directors, i.e., Technical, Exploration and Personnel.
4. A large number of affidavits have been filed in this case and we have perused the same. Transfer is an exigency of service and hence we cannot interfere with the transfer order. The transfer was on administrative considerations. We find no mala fides against the respondents, and hence it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, The petition is dismissed.