ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Transfer of Prison Warders/Constables challenged as punitive. Held that transfer is an incident of service and judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. Mere temporal proximity between an alleged incident of misconduct and the order of transfer, or subsequent issuance of charge memos, does not by itself render a transfer punitive, particularly where transfers are effected on administrative grounds affecting a large number of employees. In the absence of pleaded malafides, violation of statutory transfer rules, or proof that transfer was in lieu of punishment, interference is unwarranted. Writ Petition dismissed.

Monday, January 12, 2026

Transfer of Prison Warders/Constables challenged as punitive. Held that transfer is an incident of service and judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. Mere temporal proximity between an alleged incident of misconduct and the order of transfer, or subsequent issuance of charge memos, does not by itself render a transfer punitive, particularly where transfers are effected on administrative grounds affecting a large number of employees. In the absence of pleaded malafides, violation of statutory transfer rules, or proof that transfer was in lieu of punishment, interference is unwarranted. Writ Petition dismissed.

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

GIST

Transfer of Prison Warders/Constables challenged as punitive. Held that transfer is an incident of service and judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. Mere temporal proximity between an alleged incident of misconduct and the order of transfer, or subsequent issuance of charge memos, does not by itself render a transfer punitive, particularly where transfers are effected on administrative grounds affecting a large number of employees. In the absence of pleaded malafides, violation of statutory transfer rules, or proof that transfer was in lieu of punishment, interference is unwarranted. Writ Petition dismissed.

HEAD NOTES

Service Law — Transfer — Scope of judicial review

Transfer of a Government servant holding a transferable post is an incident of service. Courts do not sit in appeal over administrative transfers and will not interfere unless the transfer is vitiated by malafides, violation of statutory rules, or is demonstrably punitive.
(Paras 9–11, 13–14)

Transfer — Administrative grounds

Where transfers are effected on stated administrative grounds and form part of a general transfer order affecting several employees, the same cannot ordinarily be characterised as punitive or targeted.
(Paras 14–16)

Transfer alleged to be punitive

Mere proximity in time between an alleged incident of misconduct and an order of transfer does not establish that the transfer is punitive, especially when disciplinary proceedings are independently initiated under the applicable service rules.
(Paras 15–16)

Punitive transfer — Test

A transfer becomes punitive only when it is passed in lieu of punishment or founded on allegations of misconduct without following disciplinary procedure. Where regular disciplinary proceedings are initiated separately, transfer cannot be termed punitive.
(Paras 12, 15–16)

Malafides — Pleading and parties

In the absence of specific pleadings of malafides and non-joinder of the officers against whom such allegations are made, a challenge to transfer on the ground of mala fides cannot be sustained.
(Para 17)

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Judicial review in transfer matters is narrowly confined. Unless the petitioner satisfies the recognised exceptions, interference under Article 226 is impermissible.
(Paras 9, 13, 17)

RATIO DECIDENDI

An order of transfer, even if issued shortly after an incident involving the employee, does not become punitive merely on that account. Where the transfer is stated to be on administrative grounds, applies to multiple employees, and disciplinary proceedings are separately initiated in accordance with service rules, the transfer cannot be treated as one in lieu of punishment. In the absence of pleaded and proved malafides or violation of statutory provisions, courts will not interfere with such transfers under Article 226.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Background Facts

(Paras 1–4)

Petitioners, Prison Warders/Constables, were transferred from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam by memorandum dated 29.12.2024.
Transfers were stated to be on administrative grounds and formed part of a larger order affecting 66 employees.
Petitioners alleged that the transfers were triggered by incidents on 27–28.12.2024 and were therefore punitive.

II. Stand of the Respondents

(Para 3)

Respondents asserted that transfers were purely administrative.
Search operations were conducted based on security inputs.
Any protest by staff posed security concerns.
Disciplinary proceedings were independently initiated later.

III. Legal Principles on Transfer

(Paras 9–12)

Transfer is a normal incident of service.
Courts lack expertise in personnel management.
Judicial review is confined to malafides, statutory violations, or punitive colour.

IV. Punitive Transfer — Examination

(Paras 12–16)

The Court examined the plea that transfer was punitive relying on Somesh Tiwari.
Held that although the incident and transfer were close in time, subsequent issuance of charge memos showed that disciplinary jurisdiction was separately exercised.
If authorities had stopped with transfer alone, the contention might have carried weight; however, that was not the case.

V. Absence of Malafides

(Para 17)

No specific allegations of malafides.
No impleadment of officers against whom mala fide intent was alleged.
Hence, the challenge failed on this count.

VI. Conclusion

(Paras 17–18)

Petitioners failed to satisfy the recognised exceptions warranting interference.
Transfer orders upheld.
Writ Petition dismissed; interlocutory applications closed.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN