ORDER : Petitioners 14 in number working as Prison Warder/Prison Constable assailed memorandum No.Estt-4/03/2024, dated 29.12.2024 and consequential proceedings No.CP/VSP/OS(E)/ 8822/2024, dated 29.12.2024, by which they have been transferred to be wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. 2. (a) Petitioners were initially appointed as Warders/Constables in Central Prison at Warangal in different spells of time and subsequently, were transferred to Central Prison at Visakhapatnam, some in the year 2022 and others in the year 2023. On 27.12.2024, during the normal course of duties, the petitioners and other staff were searched and checked by 3 rd respondent, as the same was softly resisted, the same annoyed superiors. (b) Later, on 28.12.2024, when petitioners tried to reason with 4 th respondent, they were treated harshly and even threatened with police case. Treating the same as exhibiting gross misconduct, willful disrespect and insubordination, one of the Warder namely B.Vasudeva Rao stated to be suspended by proceedings dated 28.12.2024 issued by 4 th respondent and immediately, on the next day, the same was revoked, however, the said Warder has been transferred to District Jail at Chittoor. Simultaneously, 2 nd respondent issued memorandum dated 29.12.2024 transferring petitioners along with others to various stations, basing on which, 3 rd respondent passed consequential proceedings issuing relieving orders for 66 employees, which included petitioners herein. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. (a) 3 rd respondent filed counter inter alia stating that the 2 nd respondent has issued memo dated 29.12.2024 transferring as many as 66 employees working in different capacities in different prisons, which is purely an administrative decision. Later, 3 rd respondent issued consequential relieving orders and that now petitioners have all joined at their new stations and are working there. With respect to the allegation of search and inspection in the prison, it is stated that based on information received that there is possible presence of contraband, suspected to be mobile phone in Penna Block of Central Prison, Visakhaptnam, there was a surprise check, in particular petitioners 5 and 6, who were on duty at entrance of Penna Block were checked and the said check was conducted in guards resting room in terms of the memos dated 01.12.1998, 06.12.2005 and 16.02.2013, issued by Director General of Prisons and instructions of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. (b) Subsequently, on 31.12.2024, two mobile phones, data cables and power bank were traced as buried underground in Penna Barrack. Aforesaid incident is stated to do nothing with the administrative transfers. The said search was found to be not to the liking of petitioners and other guarding staff, therefore, they had conducted protest in front of Central Prison demanding to end any further searching of guarding staff, which caused hindrance to the operations and posing grave threat to prison security as there were about 2059 prisoners stationed. (c) It is also stated that in order to subside the protest, the officers of prison have entertained dialogue with protestors and after series of negotiations, on the assurance of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Costal Andhra Region, the protesting staff have silenced and resumed to their duties. (d) In sum and substance, the counter tried to distance the transfers and the incident that had happened on 27 th and 28 th December, 2024. 4. (a) Petitioner filed reply denying the contents of counter with respect to the allegations made against petitioners 5 and 6 in particular and others in general with respect to the incident occurred on 27 th and 28 th December, 2024 and further also pleaded that after transfer, petitioners have been issued charge memos dated 17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025, based on the incident occurred on 28.12.2024 for misconduct, willful disrespect, indiscipline, willful dis-obedience and insubordination. (b) It is also stated that the subsequent event of issuance of charge memo clearly goes to show that they have been transferred on punitive grounds, but not on administrative grounds. 5. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contentions raised in writ petition, mainly contended that transfer of petitioners though styled as on administrative grounds, the same is on punitive grounds, inasmuch as the triggering point being incident that had occurred on 27 th and 28 th December, 2024, therefore, but for the said incident, petitioners would not have been transferred. In support of the said contention, he placed on the following judgments: 1. Kommana Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 (2) ALD 381 2. Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592 3. In support of the said contention, he placed on the following judgments: 1. Kommana Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 (2) ALD 381 2. Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592 3. The General Manager, South Central Railway v. S.Srinivasa Rao, Telangana High Court judgment in W.P. No.24023 of 2010 4. T.R.P. Singh v. TSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Telangana High Court judgment in W.P. No.15175 of 2020 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that transfer of petitioners is merely on administrative ground and inasmuch as 66 employees working in different posts and stations were transferred, it cannot be said that petitioners were specifically targeted and transferred to colour it as punitive nature. He further contended that the judicial review with respect to transfers is very limited and unless it is clearly established that there is violation of statutory provision or transfer is swayed by malafides, the same cannot be interdicted. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. C.Narasimha Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 (1) ALT 514 (AP) 2. Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests v. M.Jagadeesh Chandra Prasad, Judgment of this Court in W.A. No.325 of 2019 3. Sri Pubi Lombi v. The State of Arunachala Pradesh & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 279 4. Shilpi Bose (MRs) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 8. Perused the record. 9. Judicial interference in cases of transfers of Government Servants is fairly settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments. It is apt to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Publi Lombi’s case (supra 7) , which observed thus: “ 15. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 10. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 10. In N.K.Singh v. Union of India , [ (1994) 6 SCC 98 ] , Hon’ble Apex Court considered the aspect of transfer and prerogative of an employer in effecting transfers and observed thus: “ 23. However, acceptance of the appellant's claim would imply that no other officer in the CBI is competent and fit to conduct the sensitive investigation and his successor would stand automatically discredited without any such allegation being made or hearing given to him. That indeed is a tall order and impermissible in this proceeding where the other officers are not even participants. The tendency of anyone to consider himself indispensable is undemocratic and unhealthy. Assessment of worth must be left to the bona fide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated. 24. The private rights of the appellant being unaffected by the transfer, he would have been well advised to leave the matter to those in public life who felt aggrieved by his transfer to fight their own battle in the forum available to them. The appellant belongs to a disciplined force and as a senior officer would be making several transfers himself. Quite likely many of his men, like him, may be genuinely aggrieved by their transfers. The appellant belongs to a disciplined force and as a senior officer would be making several transfers himself. Quite likely many of his men, like him, may be genuinely aggrieved by their transfers. If even a few of them follow his example and challenge the transfer in courts, the appellant would be spending his time defending his actions instead of doing the work for which he holds the office. Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill-advised.” 11. In State of M.P. v. S.S.Kourav , [ (1995) 3 SCC 270 ] , Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “The courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case transfer order having been issued on administrative grounds, expediency of those orders cannot be examined by the Court.” 12. All the above referred judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with transfers in general, as an exception testing a case of transfer whether to be in lieu of punishment, Hon’ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India , [ (2009) 2 SCC 592 ] , held thus: “ 16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds—one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. Mala fide is of two kinds—one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” 13. Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgments, being conscious of the fact that the judicial review in transfers is very restrictive and narrowed down only to the extent of clear tests laid down that are violation of statutory provisions, pleading malafide and non-joining the person against whom such allegations are made, the facts of the present case are tested here under. 14. Petitioners are all stated to be transferred to Central Prison at Visakhapatnam during the periods 2020 and 2023. They all have now been transferred from said station to different stations by impugned memorandum dated 29.12.2024 issued by 2 nd respondent. The said memorandum clearly specifies that the transfers effected therein were on account of administrative convenience and about 66 employees working in different prisons/jails came to be transferred. Consequently, by proceedings dated 29.12.2024, relieving orders were issued by 3 rd respondent. Petitioners contend that though memorandum refers to the reason for transfer being on account of administrative convenience, it is not so and only in order to punish them, they were transferred, which is clearly punitive, therefore, on such extraneous consideration, the transfers are vitiated. Heavy reliance has been placed on the Hon’ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari’s case (supra 2) , which later came to be followed by coordinate bench of this Court in Komma Ramesh’s case (supra 1) 15. Ex facie, by going with impugned memorandum, the reason for transfer is stated to be on administrative convenience. Heavy reliance has been placed on the Hon’ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari’s case (supra 2) , which later came to be followed by coordinate bench of this Court in Komma Ramesh’s case (supra 1) 15. Ex facie, by going with impugned memorandum, the reason for transfer is stated to be on administrative convenience. Petitioners claim that because of incident that had happened on 27/28 th of December 2024, they have been transferred and later charge memos dated 17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025 were issued to them imputing misconduct, misbehaviour and in subordination with respect to the incident that occurred on the night of 28 th December, 2024. Petitioners tried to link these events to contend that the transfers are clearly punitive in nature. At first blush, the argument advanced by petitioners appears to be persuading, however, deep analysis of the same go to show that may be the incident occurred on 28.12.2024 just before a day of effecting transfers, as charge memos came to be issued much later on 17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025, it cannot be said that transfers are effected as a measure of punishment. The event of transfers and initiation of disciplinary proceedings relating to the incident happened on the night of 28.12.2024 may have close proximity in time but as respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings, the same itself would disclose that separate and independent course of action has been chosen exercising the powers conferred on disciplinary authority under A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, for which there is a definitive procedure and consequence provided, it is too far fetch to say that the transfers are measure of punishment. Had respondents merely stopped with transfer without any further action, there would have been some force in the contention of petitioners. The transfer orders go to show that about 66 employees came to be transferred on the said day, not petitioners alone. 16. Several imponderables requiring formation of special opinion in sphere may be involved and it has to be left to the wisdom of hierarchal superiors to make decision on transfers. Even assuming that the incident occurred on 27/28 th December, 2024 had incidentally weighed in the mind of 2 nd respondent and in his wisdom if decision is made to transfer, such decision will not be susceptible for judicial review unless it is pointed out that the same is vitiated by malafides or contrary to statutory rules of transfer. Even assuming that the incident occurred on 27/28 th December, 2024 had incidentally weighed in the mind of 2 nd respondent and in his wisdom if decision is made to transfer, such decision will not be susceptible for judicial review unless it is pointed out that the same is vitiated by malafides or contrary to statutory rules of transfer. 17. Petitioners have either attributed malafides to any of officers nor joined them as parties to the present writ, therefore, such scenario does not arise. Though learned counsel for petitioner has tried to buttress his argument based on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kommana Ramesh’s case (supra 1) and Somesh Tiwari’s case (supra 2) on over all consideration of facts and circumstances, this Court finds that though there is no quarrel with regard to ratio laid down in the said judgments, the same have no application to facts of present case. In view of the same, this Court is satisfied that petitioners have not made out any exception or satisfied the test laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court to interdict with the transfers effected. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed.