S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) ). Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the Special Civil application, affidavit-in- reply and affidavit-in-rejoinder. ( 2 ) ). Challenge has been made by petitioner to the order of respondent dated 15th May, 1999, under which he was ordered to be transferred from ACB office, Himmatnagar to cid (Intelligence) Ahmedabad. ( 3 ) ). This writ petition has been filed by petitioner in this Court on 27th May, 1999. For preliminary hearing, it was placed in the Court on 28th May, 1999, on which date, this court has ordered for issuance of notice to the respondents, returnable on 17th June, 1999, however interim relief has not been granted. The matter was placed in the Court on 21st july, 1999 on which date, this Court has directed the petitioner to remain personally present in the Court. This has been directed for the reason that the Court wanted to ascertain the reason why the petitioner had not joined at the transferred place. ( 4 ) ). In the reply to the Special Civil Application, the respondents have given out that the petitioner has continuously remained on leave and as ACB work was suffering it was considered to be serious and he was posted at a place where he has to discharge light duties. ( 5 ) ). Transfer of the petitioner cannot be said to be malafide but on the basis of facts given out in the reply affidavit, it is for administrative exigency, to which no exception can be taken. The position of law is well settled that the power of judicial review of this court in the matter of transfer of employees or officers of the State Government is limited within four corners or sphere where the order is passed malafide or the authority which passed the order has violated some statutory provision in making thereof. Reference in this respect may have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. S. L Abbas, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 . ( 6 ) ). Not only on merits, otherwise also, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner is a senior police inspector and being a police inspector a higher degree of discipline is expected from him. ( 6 ) ). Not only on merits, otherwise also, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner is a senior police inspector and being a police inspector a higher degree of discipline is expected from him. Transfer order has been made on 15th May, 1999 and today we are on 17th August, 1999, i. e. , even after more than three months the same has not been complied with. The petitioner, on being asked by the Court, has stated that due his ill health, he could not comply with this order, but it is difficult to accept. It is a case where the petitioner has made out it to be a prestigious issue and has not complied with the transfer order. Even it is taken that his health was not permitting he should have complied with this order and then he should have applied for leave and in case he would have been really ill same would have been considered. It is a matter of distance of about 70 to 80 kms. where the petitioner has to go to join this post. The very fact that he has not joined the post goes to show that the ground which has been given by him not to join there is only a manufactured or concocted ground. Real ground is that he does not want to comply with the order. Transfer is not a service condition. It is an incident of service and when this order has not been stayed by this Court, the petitioner has to comply with the same. Non compliance of the same exposes himself to disciplinary action. Disobedience of the order of superior officers is grave misconduct and it has to be accordingly dealt with. I am seeing everyday in this Court that on the transfer, the officers and/or the employees are not complying with the transfer orders despite of the fact that they are not ordered to be kept in abeyance by the higher officers or the implementation, execution and operation thereof is not stayed by any Court. It is no more res-integra that non compliance of transfer order exposes an employee to disciplinary action and reference in this respect may have to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1433 . It is no more res-integra that non compliance of transfer order exposes an employee to disciplinary action and reference in this respect may have to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1433 . In para-4 of the judgment, their Lordships, Supreme court, held:4. Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry ou; the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules, as has happened in the instance case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other. ( 7 ) ). On merits as well as on conduct this writ petition deserves to be dismissed the same is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged. The petitioner is directed to pay R. 500/- as costs of this writ petition to the respondents. .