JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Assailing the order of transfer dated 12.11.2009, the submission is that it was not a routine transfer on administrative grounds but as a punishment in pursuance of a departmental proceeding. 3. Learned counsel from the pleadings submits that the petitioner had replied to the charges and has not been made aware of what has transpired in the proceedings and what final orders have been passed. 4. Counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. This Court does not consider the same necessary. 5. An order of transfer simplicitor on an administrative ground may not necessarily require a departmental proceeding, if transfer is considered conducive to good administration. But the matter becomes different when the transfer is founded on a finding arrived at in a departmental proceeding and which is the reason for the transfer. In that event, the transfer operates as a punishment. The delinquent is, therefore, required to be given a second show cause notice in pursuance of the report that may have been submitted in the enquiry and then only can any order of punishment be passed, after considering the cause shown. 6. Since the impugned order does not contain any recital with regard to the aforesaid procedure having been followed, the order dated 12.11.2009 is set aside. 7. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report in accordance with law. 8. The writ application stands allowed.