JUDGMENT : SATHISH NINAN, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are employees of the respondent Corporation. They are working as Superintendents at the District Office, Thrissur. They are under orders of transfer (Ext.P1 in the respective writ petitions, which are one and the same order). The same is under challenge. 2. Heard Sri. O.D. Sivadas and Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal for the respective petitioners, and Sri. Deepu Thankan, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. 3. Under Ext.P1 transfer order, three employees were transferred. Among one of them is Kavitha V. Nair who was working as an Assistant at the District Office, Thrissur, and the other two are the petitioners working in the same office as Superintendents. Ext.P1 mentions misbehaviour and lack of co-operation between them. The reason for transfer as stated in Ext.P1 is, for the C.R. smooth and proper functioning of the office. 4. Ext.P1 order of transfer was based on a report obtained through the Executive Director (Vigilance), of the Corporation. A copy of the report submitted by the Executive Director (Vigilance) has been produced by the respondent along with their counter affidavit, as Ext.R1(b). The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that a perusal of Ext.P1 and Ext.R1(b) would reveal that, the entire allegations are regarding the misconduct of the Assistant-Smt. Kavitha V. Nair, and that there is hardly any reference to the petitioners. To regain the smooth atmosphere in the office, it would have been sufficient to transfer the said Assistant - Kavitha V. Nair; orders of transfer of the petitioners were totally unnecessary, it is contended. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would on the other hand contend that, as is evident from Ext.R1(b) report and as mentioned in Ext.P1 order, the misbehaviour of the petitioners and the Assistant has seriously affected the functioning of the office. It is to maintain the smooth functioning of the office, that orders of transfer have been issued. The order of transfer is based on administrative exigencies and may not be interfered with by this Court, it is contended. 6. Law is too well settled that, transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. It is also well settled that, unless the orders of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or mala-fides, Courts should be loathe in interfering with the same. 6. Law is too well settled that, transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. It is also well settled that, unless the orders of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or mala-fides, Courts should be loathe in interfering with the same. Courts will be extremely circumspect, will act with restraint and may not ponder into hairsplitting arguments, to scan the decisions in orders of transfer. The Corporation cannot effectually work when the employees act intolerably or spitefully amongst themselves or is engaged in activities which go against the best interests of the Corporation. Transfer can be effected on administrative grounds as long as it is intended to aid proper administration and to sub-serve internal discipline. 7. When an employee is transferred to maintain the smooth running of an organization, it is not to be understood as a punishment. The element of punishment is absent therein. The idea is to maintain the internal harmony of the organisation and to safeguard its smooth functioning. In every case of erratic or inappropriate behaviour by a subordinate, the employer is not bound to initiate departmental action and to impose punishment. For effecting a transfer, there need not be any enquiry conducted to first ascertain whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee. To hold otherwise would frustrate the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration, to enforce a decorum and ensure probity. 8. The question whether an employee is to be transferred to a different division etc. are matters for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities. The power to transfer an employee in a transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. It is he who knows best, where an employee should be deployed for an effective discharge of his/her duties for the establishment. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent on the transfer are not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. A transfer can always be done in public interest. [Babu vs. State of Kerala, 1988 (2) KLT 258 , Vasu vs. High Court of Kerala, 1989 (1) KLT 16 , Dinamony vs. Dt. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent on the transfer are not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. A transfer can always be done in public interest. [Babu vs. State of Kerala, 1988 (2) KLT 258 , Vasu vs. High Court of Kerala, 1989 (1) KLT 16 , Dinamony vs. Dt. Superintendent of Police, Kollam, 1994 (1) KLT 326 , P. Pushpakaran vs. Chairman, Coir Board, 1979 (1) SLR 309 , Rajan vs. Director General of Police, 1999 (2) KLT 673 , Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659, Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, 1993 (4) SCC 357 , National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan, 2001 8 SCC 574 , Union of India and Others vs. Sri Janardhan Debanath and Another, 2004 (4) SCC 245 , Divyamol R.S. vs. Director General Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi and Others, 2022 (5) KHC 732 ]. 9. In addition to the law on transfers as noticed supra, it is appropriate to refer to clause 11 of the Transfer Guidelines in Appendix-IV of the Long-Term Settlement Agreement, 2012 of the Corporation. A copy of the same has been produced along with the counter affidavit as Annexure-R1(a). Clause 11 thereof deals with “Transfer on Administrative ground due to disciplinary issues.” Therefore, the Corporation is enabled even under the Transfer Guidelines to effect transfers of its employees on administrative grounds, to maintain a harmonious and working atmosphere at its offices. 10. In the case at hand, from the report of the Executive Director (Vigilance), the authorities were satisfied that there is disharmony in the office caused at the instance of the persons who are under orders of transfer in Ext.P1, including the petitioners. It was noticed that the smooth functioning of the office is affected. It is taking note of such circumstances that Ext.P1 transfer order has been issued. 11. There is no material to infer malice or mala-fides on the part of the authority, much less is there any such allegation. The orders of transfer warrant no interference. 12. Resultantly, the writ petitions are dismissed.