JUDGMENT (Per the Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.22853 of 2004 is the appellant. The facts in brief are that, the appellant was appointed as a Project Officer, in Vedic Institution established and run by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short the Devasthanam), on 30.09.2002. He was placed on probation for a period of two years. On 25.09.2004, the Devasthanam issued proceedings to the appellant, requiring him to work in an institution at Secunderabad. This was on the basis of a resolution passed by the Trust Board of the Devasthanam. The appellant did not join, at that place. That was taken note of, and a notice, dated 27.10.2004, was issued, requiring him to report to duty within one week. It was also mentioned that if he fails to report to duty within that time, he would be discharged from service. The appellant, however, did not join the duty. After receiving confirmation from the Principal of the Institution, the Devasthanam issued proceedings, dated 18.11.2004, removing the appellant from service with immediate effect. The writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings, dated 25.09.2004. The appellant pleaded that though he was a probationer at the relevant point of time, the proceedings, dated 25.09.2004, were issued by casting aspersions, and it amounts to punishment. He stated that the institution was headed by the Director General, which is equivalent to the post of Vice Chancellor, and after down-gradation, it came to be designated as Project Officer, equivalent to Head of Department and Reader, and he was appointed in that post, whereas he was required to work under a Principal as a Lecturer, on transfer. It is also pleaded that the order of removal was passed without conducting enquiry and it is not only violative of Service Regulations, but also the principles of natural justice. The Devasthanam filed a counter-affidavit, narrating the circumstances that led to the removal of the appellant from service. It was stated that though his conduct was found to be unsatisfactory, it was decided to give him a chance, but the same was not availed by the appellant. According to them, the appellant was very much a probationer by the time he was removed from service and the basis for removal was his failure and refusal to join the duty, at a place to which he was transferred. According to them, the appellant was very much a probationer by the time he was removed from service and the basis for removal was his failure and refusal to join the duty, at a place to which he was transferred. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 04.02.2005. Hence, this writ appeal. Heard Sri Siddartha Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the Devasthanam. The appellant has to blame himself for the present state of affairs. He has been selected and appointed in a reputed institution of Vedic Studies run by the Devasthanam as a Project Officer, through order, dated 30.09.2002. As required under relevant Service Rules, he was placed under probation. Various acts and omissions on the part of the appellant were assessed and it was found that his functioning was not proper. Almost as a matter of sheer respect for the appellant, the Trust Board has decided to post him in an institution at Secunderabad even after noticing certain serious lapses. In case the appellant had any serious objection to work at Secunderabad, he could have raised the same after joining the place. It is not as if he was assigned any duties unrelated to his qualifications and learning. His pay scale was kept in tact and his designation remained the same. The correspondence undertaken by the appellant in this behalf was totally on objectionable lines. The Trust Board of the Devasthanam has taken note of disobedience, on the part of the appellant to join the duty. A resolution was passed to give a chance to the appellant to join the duty within seven days, with a threat of penal action. Even that did not evoke in any positive response from the appellant. He continued to defy, and that, in turn, resulted in passing the order, dated 16.10.2004 terminating his services. It is true that holding of enquiry becomes necessary, when the service of a probationer was terminated as a punitive measure. In the instant case, the respondents never proposed to terminate the services of the appellant as a punitive measure, when he was continuing as probationer. Though serious lapses as to his functioning were taken note of, the only step taken by the respondent was to transfer him to a different institution, even while protecting his pay scale and status. In the instant case, the respondents never proposed to terminate the services of the appellant as a punitive measure, when he was continuing as probationer. Though serious lapses as to his functioning were taken note of, the only step taken by the respondent was to transfer him to a different institution, even while protecting his pay scale and status. A reference to the objectionable acts or lapses was made in the order of transfer. A mere order of transfer cannot be said to be a measure of punishment. In the order of termination, dated 16.10.2004, except that the narration of events was made, no specific allegations as to his functioning were incorporated. The only basis for terminating the services of the appellant was his failure and refusal to join the place to which he was transferred. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the relevant precedents on the subject and dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the same. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.