As has been noticed above, the petitioners have clearly failed to establish that the impugned order of transfer is tainted with mala fides. This allegation is based only on the averments made in the writ petition wherein it is alleged that the fourth respondent misbehaved with the petitioner No. 2. However, despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to establish before this Court how the fourth respondent was in any manner involved in the decision making process which was undertaken. In the context and backdrop in which the impugned order of transfer came to be passed, the only involvement of the fourth respondent which is established is of the making of a compliant in respect of the incident which unfolded in his chambers during office hours. The proposal of transfer has been approved not just by the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. but also by the Independent Committee comprising of two senior Government servants. It would therefore be preposterous to either presume or accept that the fourth respondent was able to influence the decision making process. The fact that ex post facto approval was obtained by the respondents in light of the Circulars which operated is neither disputed nor is the decision of the Independent Committee granting such ex post facto approval challenged in this writ petition. Since the approval itself has been sought in light of the Circulars which have been framed by the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Sharma , the Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders of transfer would merit no interference.
