JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. - The petitioner has challenged the legality of the transfer order dated 26.12.2018, and the order dated 01.02.2019. By the former order, he was transferred from the District Unit Medak, to the District Unit Nalgonda. By the latter consequential order, he was transferred from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, Medak District, and was posted to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Court of Junior Civil Judge at Narsapur, Medak District. During the course of his service, the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur addressed a letter, dated 18.04.2018, to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, wherein he claimed that the petitioner was indulging in unscrupulous activities; he had received complaints from advocates alleging that the petitioner is not bringing the files to the Bench. Even the Junior Civil Judge had noticed that while preparing the statements, the petitioner tends to commit mistakes. Thus, both his actions are damaging the reputation of the institution. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, the District Judge, Medak had written to the High Court. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner. Therefore, during the pendency of the enquiry, on 26.12.2018, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner was transferred from the unit of District Judge, Medak, to the unit of District Judge, Nalgonda. Moreover, by order dated 01.02.2019, the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Ms. Sujatha, the learned counsel appearing for Mr. D. Linga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 ('the Rules, 2003', for short), the unit of appointment for the purpose of direct recruitment, transfer, seniority, appointment as full member, shall be the revenue district. Therefore, the unit of appointment for the petitioner was the Medak District. However, in contravention to Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003, the petitioner has been transferred from the revenue district of Medak, to the revenue district of Nalgonda. Therefore, the very transfer is clearly against the procedure established by law. Hence, both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. However, in contravention to Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003, the petitioner has been transferred from the revenue district of Medak, to the revenue district of Nalgonda. Therefore, the very transfer is clearly against the procedure established by law. Hence, both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. V. Uma Devi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1, submits that Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003 itself begins with the words "except as otherwise provided herein below". Therefore, the entire Rules would have to be read in toto. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in reading only a part of the Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003, and not reading the entire Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003 holistically. 6. Secondly, according to Rule 28 of the Rules, 2003, which specifically deals with transfers and postings, "ordinarily" the transfer should be within the unit. However, in extraordinary circumstances, and for administrative exigencies, a transfer can be made outside the unit. 7. Thirdly, since the petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry, where the allegations were that he was not putting up the files on the Bench, and was making mistakes in the statements drawn by him, in order to preempt the petitioner from influencing those advocates, who had filed complaints against him, it was imperative that the petitioner be transferred from Medak District to Nalgonda District. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 was justified in transferring the petitioner for administrative exigencies. 8. Lastly, an employee cannot claim to have a right of lean on a particular post at a particular location. Hence, transfer is an incident of service; it is not by way of punishment. In fact, the petitioner's transfer was by way of precautionary measures which require to be taken on a person, who is facing departmental enquiry. Hence, the learned counsel has supported both the impugned orders. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned orders. 10. Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003 is as under:- "10. Unit of appointment:- "Except as otherwise provided herein below, the unit of appointment for the purpose of direct recruitment, transfer, seniority, appointment as full member and discharge for want of vacancy shall be revenue district. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned orders. 10. Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003 is as under:- "10. Unit of appointment:- "Except as otherwise provided herein below, the unit of appointment for the purpose of direct recruitment, transfer, seniority, appointment as full member and discharge for want of vacancy shall be revenue district. But in the case of Hyderabad City, the unit of appointment will be the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad. Further in the case of any Special Court constituted in the City of Hyderabad, for purpose of staff in these Courts, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad shall be the appointing authority. ..." (Emphasis added) 11. Rule 28 of the Rules, 2003 is as under:- "28. Transfers and postings:- (1) The transfers and postings of person shall, ordinarily be made by the appointing authorities within the unit. (2) Transfer of members of the service who are full members or approved probationers from the jurisdiction of one appointing authority to that of another shall be made by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh: Provided .... (3) xxx (4) xxx" 12. A bare perusal of both these rules clearly reveals that Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003 is subject to the other Rules contained in Rules, 2003. Therefore, the word 'transfer' used in Rule 10 of the Rules, 2003 would be subject to Rule 28 of the Rules, 2003. Rule 28 of Rules, 2003 does not place a total bar on the power of High Court to transfer an employee. Although, ordinarily, it is preferable to transfer an employee within the unit, but nonetheless, the power to transfer an employee, outside the unit, equally exists under Rule 28 of the Rules, 2003. 13. Considering the fact that the petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry, where the allegation was that advocates have complained against him, it was essential to remove the petitioner from his place of posting in Medak District so as to preclude him from influencing the witnesses, and tampering with the evidence. Hence, the decision to transfer him from the unit of Medak District to the unit of Nalgonda District was obviously made for administrative exigencies. 14. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders dated 26.12.2018, and 01.02.2019. Hence, the decision to transfer him from the unit of Medak District to the unit of Nalgonda District was obviously made for administrative exigencies. 14. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders dated 26.12.2018, and 01.02.2019. Since the writ petition is devoid of any merit, it is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.