JUDGMENT K. Sreedharan, J. 1. When C.M. P. 21777/1991 came up for orders, I heard counsel appearing on either side in detail. I am disposing of the Original Petition. 2. Petitioner was working as Senior Instructor in I.T.I., Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram. He misbehaved towards the Project Coordinator. As a consequence of that misconduct, he has been transferred from I.T.I., Chackai to I.T.I., Malampuzha. This order of transfer is under challenge. 3. On behalf of the first respondent, a statement has been filed. It is stated therein that K Sivaji, I. A. S., the Project Coordinator, Directorate of Training went to I.T.I. Chackai for inspection on 20-10-1990. While he was seated in the Principal's room, the petitioner entered that room. When the Project Coordinator asked his name, petitioner started misbehaving by uttering inappropriate sentences. This was reported to the Director of Training Petitioner was transferred' out, to I.T.I. Dhanuvachapuram, as per order dated 20-10-1990 and was relieved of his duties with effect from 23-10-1990. Consequent on this, the staff in I.T.I., Chackai went on strike. So, the order of transfer was kept in abeyance and the matter was reported to Government. Government ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for misbehaviour and to transfer him from I.T.I. Chackai. Accordingly, he was transferred to I.T.I., Malampuzha. Disciplinary action has been initiated against petitioner by serving memo of charges dated 15-5-1991. The statement of facts submitted by him is being examined. Disciplinary action has not been completed. His continuance in the Institute is not desirable till the disciplinary action is finalised. 4. In Abdul Khader v. Regional Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Ernakulam ( 1967 KLT 354 ), this Court took the view that it is the inherent right of the Government to transfer its employees from one service" to another and merely because an employee has been transferred from one service to another, he cannot complain in a court about it. If the transfer was intended or motivated to operate as a punishment, the order cannot stand. In other words, the power of transfer cannot be invoked as a substitute for action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. When a person is found prima facie guilty of misconduct, he must be proceeded against as per the provisions contained in Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. In other words, the power of transfer cannot be invoked as a substitute for action under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. When a person is found prima facie guilty of misconduct, he must be proceeded against as per the provisions contained in Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. He is not to be transferred and the order of transfer is not to be made as a substitute for punishment. In Ext. P4, the subject referred to is: - "Establishment I T. I. Shri. C. Ramachandran Nair, Senior Instructor I.T.I., Trivandrum - Misbehaviour towards Project Coordinator follow up action transfers order issued". This, according to the learned counsel representing the petitioner, shows that petitioner was transferred as a measure of punishment. 5. In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is mentioned that the petitioner misbehaved towards the Project Coordinator by uttering inappropriate sentences. In Industrial Training Institutes, coaching is being imparted to trainees. Petitioner is one of the persons entrusted with the duty of coaching the students. If he has misbehaved by uttering inappropriate sentences, which fact is pending enquiry, he is not a fit person to work as an Instructor in the I.T.I. Such a person, who is prima facie shown to have misbehaved towards the Project Coordinator in the Institute, where students are undergoing the course of study, is not a fit person to be retained there. His transfer cannot be said to have been effected with a dominant motive to punish him. The transfer was to ensure efficiency in administration and maintenance of discipline in the Institute. So, on the facts and circumstances of this case, I am convinced that the transfer of the petitioner was in the best interest of the Institute. It would have been better on the part of the Government to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules immediately on coming to know of the misconduct committed by the Petitioner. This having not been done, his removal from the Institute has at least gone to maintain discipline in that Institute. On this ground, I do not find any ground to interfere with the transfer, impugned in this Original Petition. Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.