Judgment :- This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 26.03.2009 passed in O.A.No.3952 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the transfer order issued by the first respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.382 dated 02.03.2009 and for quashing the same. 2. The petitioner, who is working as Sub-Registrar Grade-I at Patamata of Vijayawada, Krishna District, has been transferred and posted to the place of the sixth respondent at Kavutaram, Machilipatnam vide G.O.Rt.No.382 dated 02.03.2009 issued by the first respondent in relaxation of ban on transfer of employees. Challenging the same, he filed O.A.No.3952 of 2009, but the same was dismissed on the ground that as G.O.Rt.No.382, dated 02.03.2009, whereby the petitioner was transferred, was issued after following due procedure, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said order. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 38 of the Rules and Rule 4-A of the Code provides the manner in which the Officer has to exercise the powers and the purpose of effecting transfers. The relevant rules are extracted as hereunder: Under Rule 38 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules), a member of a State Service or class of a State Service may be posted to any post borne on the cadre of such service or class of service anywhere in the State. Under Rule 38(c) of the Rules, all transfers and postings of a member of State or Subordinate Service shall be made subject to sub-rules (a) and (b) by the appointing authority or such other authority subordinate to the appointing authority specified in the special, rules or to whom the appointing authority has delegated such powers of postings and transfers. Under Rule 38(c)(ii) of the Rules, the Head of the Department may transfer a member of a service from the unit of one appointing authority to the unit of another appointing authority, where the Presidential Order is not applicable. Under Rule 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Code (for short 'the Code'), the appointing authority for the categories of Sub-Registrars, Grades-I and II shall be the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. Under Rule 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Code (for short 'the Code'), the appointing authority for the categories of Sub-Registrars, Grades-I and II shall be the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. He contended that the impugned transfer order was passed by the Government at the behest of the Honourable Chief Minister and in violation of the executive instructions issued by the second respondent-Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department vide memo dated 31.05.2008, as per which, an employee with less than two years of service in the present place of working as on 30.06.2008 should not be transferred, as the petitioner has completed one year five months service at Patamata of Vijayawada. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.17906 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008, wherein the judgments of the Apex Court in Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi V U.P.Jal Nigam (2003)11 SCC 740 And Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan V. Damodar Prasad Pandey (2004) 12 SCC 299 were referred to. In SARVESH KUMAR AWASTHI's case (1 supra), it was held as under: "In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms and guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though the transfer order was issued in relaxation of ban on transfer of employees, there is no such independent relaxation order by the Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though the transfer order was issued in relaxation of ban on transfer of employees, there is no such independent relaxation order by the Government. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent contended that charge sheet is filed against the petitioner on the ground that in a raid conducted by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 10.03.2008 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Patamata, the petitioner was found in unauthorized possession of Rs.40,000/-, and therefore, his presence at the said station is unwarranted, as there are chances of hampering the investigation and that the Government, being the higher authority of the State, issued the impugned transfer order on administrative grounds by relaxing the ban on transfer of employees and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly upheld the said transfer order. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II stated that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders suffer from any legal infirmities. 7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the material on record shows that during the raid conducted by the ACB in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Patamata, the petitioner was found in unauthorized possession of an amount of Rs.40,000/- and there are other serious allegations against the petitioner. Further, as per the recommendation of the Director General, ACB for taking departmental action against the petitioner besides transfer to a far-off non-focal place and in view of the memo issued by the Government on 06.11.2008 to transfer the Sub-Registrars, who involved in ACB cases, to non-focal places, the petitioner has been transferred vide impugned G.O. 9. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Rule 4-A of the Code, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps is the competent authority, the higher authority can exercise the power for effecting the transfers on administrative grounds. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the instructions issued by the second respondent, no employee with less than two years of service can be transferred cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the said instructions are applicable only to the employees, who are not facing any allegations or involved in ACB cases. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the instructions issued by the second respondent, no employee with less than two years of service can be transferred cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the said instructions are applicable only to the employees, who are not facing any allegations or involved in ACB cases. Inasmuch as several allegations were made against the petitioner besides his involvement in the ACB case, there is every possibility of hampering the investigation if he is retained at the former place. Therefore, it is always open to the Government to take a decision for transfer of an employee, if the situation warrants in the course of disciplinary action. 10. The law is well settled that the transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim any right to be transferred to a particular place. This Court can interdict transfer, if there is infraction of statutory rules and if any malafides are alleged or established. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 12. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.