Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. These appeals arise from the judgments passed by a learned single judge of this Court disposing of OP.Nos. 21216/98,23163/98,21914/98 and 21770/98, respectively. Common contentions were raised in these Original Petitions and they were hence disposed of as per a common judgment. 2. The challenge in these Original Petitions was with regard to the transfer of the petitioners who are police personnel from the North Zone to different districts like Palakkad, Idukki, Ernakulam Rural, Thrissur etc. According to the petitioners, the transfers are vitiated by malafides and issued only at the instance of the present office bearers of the Kerala Police Association, Kannur District who are known supporters of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), whose nominee holds the Home Portfolio. 3. In the counter filed in O.P. 21770/98 and in the statements in the other cases, it is alleged that the transfer was ordered in public interest and as such the question arising for decision in these appeals is whether the transfers can be justified as done in public interest. 4. Basic facts alleged in the counter may be summarised as follows:- A case had to be registered against certain police constables as Crime No. 268/97 of Koothuparamba Police Station and some of them were arrested. Their colleagues did not relish the action and they conspired together and distributed certain pamphlets ridiculing, criticising and abusing the senior police officers who were dealing with the investigation in the aforesaid case. The pamphlets actually came out in the name of the Police Welfare Association and enquiries made with regard to their source revealed that the petitioners were the persons behind it. Police is a disciplined force and it was felt desirable that such an action on the part of the members of the force was to be nipped in the bud. The pamphlets distributed by the petitioners would generate ill-feeling in the minds of policemen as also affect the morale of the police force. It was in these circumstances that the transfer was found necessary. There was no undue influence at the instance of the Kerala Police Association as alleged. 5. In Writ Appeal 315/99, an affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent State and that is to the following effect. Members of the Kerala Police were prohibited from forming any association. It was in these circumstances that the transfer was found necessary. There was no undue influence at the instance of the Kerala Police Association as alleged. 5. In Writ Appeal 315/99, an affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent State and that is to the following effect. Members of the Kerala Police were prohibited from forming any association. The only exception was the Kerala Police Constabulary Association which was approved by Government as per G.O. (MS) 134/79/Home dated 4.10.79. Clause 6(b)(10) of the Government Order prohibits formation of any other association by them. Art.33 in Part III of the Constitution allows abridgement of the rights with regard to certain categories of citizens which will include members of the police force also. The Parliament has accordingly enacted Act 33 of 1966, ie., the Police Forces (Restriction of rights) Act, 1966. S.3 thereof prohibits the members of the police force from being in any way associated with any association or class of trade unions except those of purely social, recreational or religious nature. Clause (b) prohibits participation of members of the police force in meetings or demonstrations organised by any body of persons for political purposes. S.4 prescribes punishment for violation as imprisonment for a term which may extend two years or with fine. Further the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 penalise activity for spreading disaffection among the police. S.3 thereof provides penalty therefor as imprisonment upto a term of 6 months or fine. 6. The enquiries made by the Department showed that at about 4 pm on 9.11.98, 23 police personnel including the present appellants assembled at the N.G.O. Association Conference Hall, Thrissur and conducted a meeting and formed an unlawful body by name'Police Welfare Association' with a view to cause disaffection among the members of police force including superior police officers who were dealing with the Koothuparamba Police firing case at the time. In the meeting, notices were circulated inciting disaffection among the police force. Consequently, Crime No. 575/98 was registered at the Thrissur Town East Police Station, under S.4 of the Police Forces (Restriction of rights ) Act, 1966 and S.3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 read with s. 123 and 120b of the Indian penalcode. The appellants in Writ Appeal 315/99 and the appellant in Writ Appeal 408/99 and some others were accused in the said crime 575/98. The appellants in Writ Appeal 315/99 and the appellant in Writ Appeal 408/99 and some others were accused in the said crime 575/98. The accused surrendered before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur and were enlarged on bail and the case is under investigation. The involvement of these appellants in the said case is a very serious matter. It was on a careful consideration of the entire situation that the D.G.P. felt it necessary, in order to avoid organised subversion of discipline; for upkeep of the morale of the police force and to ensure smooth running of the disciplined force to shift the appellants to other places. There is no malafides involved in the matter. Ext. P2 in O.P. 21914/98 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Wayanad pursuant to consequent orders of IGP. The appellants have already been relieved from their previous positions and there is no justification for changing the status quo. Under S.17 of the Kerala Police Act, the appellants are liable to be posted anywhere in the State. The seniority of the petitioners will not be affected albeit their transfer were in inter-district basis in so far as the transfers were not on their request. There is no justification to interfere with or modify the impugned orders. 7. We have heard both sides at length. 8. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even assuming that there is justification for registering a crime against the appellants as alleged and even if it is assumed that collateral departmental action is possible, the proper action should have been only recourse to departmental action so that the guilty could be punished through imposition of appropriate penalties as prescribed in the relevant rules and that transfer is not the panacea. The present transfer visits the petitioners and their families with serious inconveniences and consequences and the transfer norms do not allow such transfer. G.O. (MS) 1469 dated 5.12.1998 is relied on in this regard. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Muhammed Kutty v. Inspector General of Police (1987 (1) KLT 409) in support of the argument that the standing orders governing transfer have the force of law. G.O. (MS) 1469 dated 5.12.1998 is relied on in this regard. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Muhammed Kutty v. Inspector General of Police (1987 (1) KLT 409) in support of the argument that the standing orders governing transfer have the force of law. The decision in P. Pushpakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board (Ker.) (1979 (1) SLR 309) was cited in support of the contention that the Court, in such cases, should normally lean in favour of the employee. The decision in State of M.P. v. Shankar Lai (SC) (1990 (1) SLR 461) was relied on to contend that low paid employees should not normally be transferred. 9. We have considered all the contentions raised in the case. The decisions cited apply to transfers in normal circumstances. It is true that the transfers ordered in these cases are on inter-district basis and as such not in accordance with the transfer norms issued as per G.O. (MS) 1469 dated 5.12.1598. It is also true that the transfer is ordered considering the alleged involvement of the appellant in the activities of the Police Welfare Association. But will these aspects render the transfer mala fide? During hearing, the learned Government Pleader made available to us the entire file relating to the issue of the relevant transfer orders. The file contains various reports of the Special Branch Police with regard to the activities of the so-called Welfare Association as also regarding the role of the various participants. The appellants' name also figure therein. 10. Police is a disciplined force. The top echelons of the department have a duty to ensure discipline of the force which ultimately is essential for the good of the public. Police is trusted for enforcing laws and for maintaining law and order in public interest. If the members of the staff are allowed to act in support of criminals or to sabotage criminal trials that will certainly affect the proper functioning of the department. The police administration will then be weakened and that will be detrimental to the public interest. The department certainly cannot effectively work with members of the force engaged in subversive activities which go against the policy and best interests of the department. 11. Transfer is an incident of service and no employee has any legal right against it. The police administration will then be weakened and that will be detrimental to the public interest. The department certainly cannot effectively work with members of the force engaged in subversive activities which go against the policy and best interests of the department. 11. Transfer is an incident of service and no employee has any legal right against it. The contention of the appellants that the transfer is bad as they were not given any opportunity to state against the transfer nor provided with the data justifying their transfer has no force. Natural justice only implies fairness in action. Policy decisions on grounds of expediency and in the overall interest of the administration cannot be interferred with as long as it is not punitive. Courts will not always be in a position to effectively evaluate the depth and impact of the problems and situations faced by the administration. Except where the power is exercised malafide or in total abuse, the courts will be slow in interfering in such matters. It is essential that the court should act with circumspection in such matters. 12. A transfer can always be done in'public interest'. The term does not appear to be defined in any statute/ Rule. It actually involves a wider concept. When one considers the suitability of a person to be retained in a particular post in public interest, larger consideration of public policy, morality etc. will come into play. The totality of circumstances have to be considered in the matter. That no disciplinary action is taken against a Government servant for his activities while holding a particular post, does not always mean that he should be retained in the post. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 13. Should a Government servant be heard before he is transferred from a post? The answer is no. The position is settled by the decision in Vasu v. High Court of Kerala (1989(1) KLT 16). We do not find any reason to deviate from the finding therein. The question whether violation of the guidelines regarding transfers is justifiable was also considered in the aforesaid decision and it was found that even if there is violation, it is not a ground for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. We do not find our way to deviate from the principles laid down in the decision. 14. The question whether violation of the guidelines regarding transfers is justifiable was also considered in the aforesaid decision and it was found that even if there is violation, it is not a ground for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. We do not find our way to deviate from the principles laid down in the decision. 14. Transfer can be taken as made on administrative grounds as long as it is intended to protect the administration from obstructive and harmful interference and intended to subserve internal discipline. Of course, if the charge alleged against some of the appellants in this case under the special enactments already mentioned (supra) are proved, there will be the chance of punishment. It is also true that the transfer of the appellants from their existing station will cause disturbance not only to themselves but also might affect the normal life of members of their families. But these are all not sufficient to interfere in the orders of transfer. 15. Now about malafides. An action of an employer to the detriment of an employee need not always be taken as punishment. It will be justified as long as the action is not motivated by desire for punishment for the alleged fault or wrong. Punishment implies that a penalty inflicted for the commission of a wrong. When an employee is transferred because his presence is harmful to the smooth running of an organisation, the element of punishment is absent therein. The idea is not to keep the origanisational activities to run smooth bereft of internal disharmony. In every case of erratic or inappropriate behaviour by a subordinate the employer is not bound to hold departmental action and to impose punishment. He is free to resort to other modes of ensuring smooth functioning also. Such action cannot be taken as mala fide. The consequent inconvenience or suffering by the transferred employee cannot be taken as punitive and interferred with. If any authority is required for the above proposition, reference may be made to the decisions in Dinamony v. Dt. Superintendent of Police, Kollam (1994 (1) KLT 326) and P. Pushpakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board (Ker.) (1979 (1) SLR 309). 16. Employees like the appellant accepted their post fully knowing that they are to work in a disciplined force and liable to be transferred for administrative reasons. That is one of the incidents of their service. Superintendent of Police, Kollam (1994 (1) KLT 326) and P. Pushpakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board (Ker.) (1979 (1) SLR 309). 16. Employees like the appellant accepted their post fully knowing that they are to work in a disciplined force and liable to be transferred for administrative reasons. That is one of the incidents of their service. No employee can successfully challenge orders of transfer except when it is illegal; made otherwise than in public interest; for no administrative reasons or with malafide intentions. Inconvenience or civil consequences that might follow against the employee cannot have overriding effect against the public interest involved. 17. The appellants, no doubt have raised the aspect of malafides, We have already dealt with the relevant considerations in the matter. The fact that their transfer has come in the wake of certain allegations against them and that no departmental action is taken against them cannot at all be accepted as evidence of malafides behind the transfer. We are of the view that these transfers are justified when the public interest involved is looked into. Consequently, we find no justification to interfere with the transfers. The dismissal of the Original Petitions by the learned single judge is well justified. The appeals are found to be without merit and they are accordingly dismissed.