JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.12.2009 affirming her earlier order of transfer from Gaunaha to Madhubani. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer is in the form of a punishment and has been passed at the dictates of others. The petitioner has not had adequate opportunity to defend herself in the matter. 4. A show cause notice appears to have been given to the petitioner to which she replied on 20.11.2009. Though the impugned order states that no show cause has been filed, in fairness to the petitioner the Court has gone through the statements made in her reply to the show cause which she claims to have submitted to the authorities. 5. Transfer is a normal incidence of service and the Courts refrain from interference unless there be manifest arbitrariness, violation of statutory rules and procedure or palpable mala fide in the transfer. If an order of transfer has been passed for an administrative reason and when it is challenged the administrator discloses the reason, all that the Court is required to see is whether the reasons are germane to the issue or not. A germane issue can also be an environment conducive to administrative efficiency. The enforcement of administrative discipline by transfer may not necessarily require initiation of proceedings followed by a punitive transfer. 6. The impugned order is based on a prima facie satisfaction of the authorities with regard to the administrative reason as discussed in the impugned order when it was considered that it was not administratively conducive to allow her to continue at Gaunaha. 7. In (2004)4 SCC 245 (Union of India & Others V/s. Janardhan Debanath and Another) considering a challenge to an order of transfer alleged to be punitive in nature when no disciplinary proceedings were held but transfer was made only for reason of administrative discipline combined with exigency of administration, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of transfer observing as follows at Para 14: "14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigency of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs." 8. There is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed.