ORDER N .K. Patil, J. The petitioners in these petitions are assailing the correctness of the impugned transfer Order dated 25-09-2007 beetr41g No. T.IX 1 :2007-SI (A) issued by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-B and also the office Order dated 24-09-2007 bearing No. T.IX-1 :207:Estt.II and Signal No. T.IX-1 :207:ESTT.II dated 24-09-2007 of the 2nd respondent is illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and to set aside the Order dated 25-09-2007 passed by 2nd respondent and also the Order dated 13-12-2007 bearing No. T.IX-8:07:Adm.II issued by 6th respondent. Further, petitioners have sought for a direction directing the respondents to continue them at Group Center, Bangalore, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. It is not in dispute that, earlier these petitioners have filed Writ petitions before this Court in WP. No. 15494/2007 and connected matters, challenging the transfer Order Annexure-B and seeking consequential relief. Those matters had come up for consideration before this Court on 28. November 2007. This Court has disposed of those writ petitions, permitting the petitioners therein to submit their representations through proper channel to the jurisdictional competent authority, requesting to consider their grievances regarding their transfer. After the disposal of those writ petitions, petitioners have submitted their representations expressing their difficulties, domestic problems health conditions and etc. Those representations submitted by these petitioners have been considered by the 6th respondent-Inspector General of Police, and impugned order vide Annexure-F dated 13-12-2007 has been issued. Therefore, petitioners felt necessitated to present these writ petitions, seeking appropriate relief as stated supra. 3. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioners- Sri. R.A. Shiraguppi is that, inspite of petitioners submitting their representations to the respondents, making humble request to continue their services in the Bangalore Center and not to take report as per the transfer orders to the places where they have been transferred, the same have not been considered and their request has been turned down as devoid of merits without any justification. to substantiate his submission, he has pointed out and submitted that, all these petitioners have served out of Bangalore in CRPF Centers and after serving for more than 10 to 15 years, at their request and as per the Standing order, they have been transferred to Bangalore Center and they are discharging their duty sincerely and honestly without any blemish and remarks and to the satisfaction of their immediate superior officers. But this aspect of the matter has been neither looked into sympathetically as pleaded by the petitioners in their representations nor the same has been considered by respondents. Therefore, petitioners were constrained to approach this Court by assailing the correctness of the impugned transfer orders and the office order as referred above, on the ground that, those orders are liable to vitiate and requesting to Permit the petitioners to continue to serve in the Bangalore Unit as per the Standing order, till the ‘ completion of their terms, since they have got only 6 to 8 months. 4. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and after careful perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is not in dispute that, the earlier writ petitions filed by these petitioners have been disposed of by this Court, permitting them to submit their representations to the authorities as permissible under the Standing order. In turn, petitioners have submitted their representations. The said representations submitted by these petitioners have been rejected by respondents, by upholding the transfer order passed by them earlier. Further, it is significant to note that, some of the personnel were hand in glove with the then AD IGP GC Bangalore in the commission of various undesirable and dishonest activities and to find out the identity of Personnel who were part of said undesirable and irregular activities, a confidential enquiry was ordered by DIGP CRPF, Bangalore which was conducted by the Deputy Commandant, GC, Bangalore, who has submitted his report dated 22-Q9- 2007 and the said report revealed that the personnel of GC, CRPF, Bangalore Were actively involved in various undesirable, irregular and dishonest activities and recommended to lake suitable departmental action against them and also recommended for their immediate transfer to prevent’ them manipulating tampering any records or evidence. The light of the report and the recommendations of the Deputy Commandant, GC; Bangalore and taking into consideration the prima facie involvement of these petitioners in undesirable and irregular activities while they were discharging duties, respondents have transferred these petitioners from Group Center, CRPF Bangalore to various units of Bangalore Range on administrative grounds and in public interest as their continuance in GC CRP Bangalore is detrimental to the public interest maintenance of good order and discipline in CRPF which is armed Force of the Union as per the CRPF Act, 1949. Further, it is pertinent to note that, to find out the ground reality, the grounds taken by these petitioners and the submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, this Court had called for the entire original records through the counsel who has represented the respondents in the earlier round of litigation. The learned counsel appearing for respondents has produced the entire original records. This Court after critical evaluation of the entire original records has come to the conclusion that, before taking a decision to transfer these petitioners, the jurisdictional competent authority has taken all care and caution and has ordered independent enquiry to find out the alleged involvement of these petitioners in the alleged undesirable activities while discharging their duties. Further, it has been seen from the records that, in fact respondents have strictly followed the procedure as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the CRPF Act and in addition to that, they have appointed an independent Enquiry Officer in the cadre of Deputy Commandant, to conduct enquiry and to submit his report. In turn, the Enquiry officer, after thorough investigation and with reference to the documentary evidence which are available, has submitted the report and thereafter, the respondents have taken a decision to transfer these petitioners to maintain discipline in the Armed Forces. It is purely a prerogative of the authorities to take such a decision in the interest of maintenance of standard and discipline in the Armed Forces and on the ground of administrative as well as public interest. Therefore, interference by this Court is not justifiable. 5. Further, it is significant to note that, the Apex Court in the case of Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India and Others has held in respect of transfer of army personnel that, “the Scope of interference is much more narrower and limited than in case of civilian employee”. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Prabir Banerjee Vs. Union of India and Others has held in respect of transfer of army personnel that, “the Scope of interference is much more narrower and limited than in case of civilian employee”. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Prabir Banerjee Vs. Union of India and Others has held that, interference by this Court in transfer order is not justifiable as transfer is an incident of service, following the earlier judgments from the years 1991 to 2004 and rejected the grievance redressed by the parties before it, holding that, interference in the transfer order is not justifiable and the scope of the Courts exercising extra ordinary justification under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, Cannot be extended, taking into consideration that the transfer order had been made in violation of the policy of the transfer and the Standing order. In the said case also, the High Court has permitted the petitioners therein to make representations to the competent authority, in turn, they have submitted their representations for reconsideration of transfer order to the Chairman of the Department of Central Board of Excise and Customs and the said request has also been turned down and that has been accepted and upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as sated above and in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgment, interference by this Court is not justifiable, Nor I find any good grounds, as such has been made out by these petitioners to entertain these writ petitions. Hence, the writ petitions filed by these petitioners are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (2) A.I.R. Karnataka R.310; 1978 (2) Service Law Report 137 and 1973(3) S.C.C. 597 , to substantiate his submission that the order passed by respondents are arbitrary, unreasonable and they are liable to be set aside. There is no dispute or quarrel regarding the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court. The facts and circumstances of those cases and the ratio of the law laid down by this Court as referred above, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the casein hand, as referred in preceding paragraphs. There is no dispute or quarrel regarding the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court. The facts and circumstances of those cases and the ratio of the law laid down by this Court as referred above, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the casein hand, as referred in preceding paragraphs. Nor I find any substance in the submission made by Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, Therefore, the said submission made by learned counsel appearing for petitioners can not be sustained and it is rejected.