SUDHIR NARAIN, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of transfer dated 19-9-1994. 2. The petitioner was functioning as the Station Officer, P. S. Birnu, district Ghazipur. He has been transferred to the Head Quarters G. R. P. for further posting in the Moradabad section of G. R. P. of 19-9- 1994. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner was working as Station Officer. He is in Civil Police and cannot be trans ferred to Government Railway Police (in short G. R. P. ). The Police Force consists of Provincial Police, Civil Police, Armed and Mounted and the Government Railway Police. The cadre of each police is different. Regula tion 4 defines Civil Police. G. R. P. is separate and governed by Railway Police Manual. The petitioner could not, therefore, be transferred to G. R. P. 4. In Writ Petition No. 30584 of 1993-Shi Kailash Nath Yadev v. U. P. Police Head Quarters, Allahabad through D, I. G. Head Quarters, Allahabad and others, this Court has held that a Civil Police can be transferred to G. R. P. Regulation 525 oi U. P. Police Regulations permits the transfer of the police personnel from one branch to another. The Civil Police can be transferred to G. R. P. 5. In view of the above decision the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a Civil Police cannot be transferred to G. R. P. is untenable. 6. The second submission of the learned Counsel foe the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as Station Officer at Police Station Birnu, district Ghazipur. He was getting special allowance. This amounts to punishment and unless he has given consent for such transfer to G. R. P. he could not have been transferred. He has placed reliance upon Deputy Inspector General of Police and another v. Ram Iqbal Tiwari, 1975 ALJ 223, wherein the Court held that where an incumbent is removed from the office of special emolument without being given an opportunity of hearing, the order is vitiated as violates the principles of natural justice. The order amounts to a punish ment under Section 7 (d) of the. Police Act. Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 provides the various punishment which may be imposed against a Police Officer. The order amounts to a punish ment under Section 7 (d) of the. Police Act. Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 provides the various punishment which may be imposed against a Police Officer. One of the punishment under Section 7 (d) is removal from any office of distinction or Special emolument. 7. In the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police (supra) the court held that the Police Officer was removed from the office of special emolument by way of punishment. He was posted as Police Inspector In-charge of Police Station since 1952. It was on 14th February, 1969 he was posted as Second Officer at a Police Station. This was not a case of transfer simpliciter. 8. In State of U. P. and others v. Jagdev Singh, AIR 1984 SC 1115 , it was held that clause (d) of Section 7 speaks of the punishment of removal from any office of special emolument. It was further made clear that any or every transfer of the Police Officer from one Police Station to another will not amount to punishment even if it involves the loss of special emoluments : The Court observed as under : "we must make it clear that any and every transfer of a police officer from one police station to another will not amount to punishment, even if it involves the loss of a special emolument. If a police officer is transferred from one charge to another in the ordinary course of administrative exigencies, the provisions of Sec tion 7 of the Police Act will not be attracted because a transfer simpliciter is not punishment. It is only when the transfer is made by way of punishment, as in the instant case, that Section 7 would come into play. ". 9. The petitioner has been transferred from Civil Police to G. R. P. and there is no element of punishment in it. The mere fact that on such transfer the petitioner will not get the special emolument does not attract clause (d) of Section 7 of Police Act, 1861. 10. The third submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order has been passed mala fide at the behest of one local M. L. A. Afzal Ansari, as the petitioner was trying to prosecute his brother who is a Mafia Don. 10. The third submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order has been passed mala fide at the behest of one local M. L. A. Afzal Ansari, as the petitioner was trying to prosecute his brother who is a Mafia Don. He also got on F. I. R. lodged against the petitioner on 27-9-1994 on the allegation that one Janardan Yadav, was caught red handed in the process of running away with a Jeep taxi, was beaten and subsequently died at the instance of the petitioner. 11. There is no allegation of mala fide against respondent No. 1. 12. In the result there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .