Dismissed¶49

M Suresh Kumar v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jul 2026WP/4619/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police constable transfer during ban on transfers; administrative transfer valid without recorded reasons; proviso to Article 309 - appointing authority's transfer power cannot be curtailed by executive instructions; no special State Government permission needed where transfer in good faith for better administration; complaints of improper behaviour towards women police employees; preliminary enquiry; Vizianagaram; WP 4619 of 2026; Nyapathy Vijay, J; dismissed 08.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

A transfer is an administrative act, and the transfer cannot be faulted for not assigning any reasons. ¶46

M Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned transfer, issued while a ban on transfer of employees was in force and without seeking permission from the State Government, can be sustained. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The contention that permission from the Government is required because of the ban on transfers is misplaced: the ban is with regard to general transfers and to avoid allegations of favouritism, and whenever the ban is lifted for a limited period the window of opportunity for transfers is available to all in equal measure.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

A transfer is an administrative act, and the transfer cannot be faulted for not assigning any reasons.

¶46

Key takeaways

The appointing authority under the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 is always vested with the power to transfer.ratio¶46
In the strict sense, such power of transfer cannot be curtailed even vide executive instructions.ratio¶48
Since the power of transfer in this case was exercised for better administration and in good faith, no special permission from the State Government was required.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) by a Police Constable (H.C.1212) challenging his transfer from I Town P.S., Vizianagaram (attached to DTC) to Therlam P.S. by proceedings DO 79/2026/C No.454/A/2026, dt. 07.02.2026 of the SP, Vizianagaram, on grounds that (i) a ban on transfers was in force and no State Government permission was obtained, and (ii) the order contained no valid reasons. The Counter-Affidavit disclosed representations/letters dt. 06.07.2025 from women police personnel (ASI Y. Gangamma; Inspector B. Lalitha; ASI S. Rama Lakshmi) alleging improper conduct, a prior PPI punishment dt. 14.6.2016, three earlier censures, and a preliminary enquiry conducted in view of 15 women employees at I Town P.S. HELD: (1) a transfer, being an administrative act, cannot be faulted for want of assigned reasons; (2) the transfer-ban objection was misplaced - the ban concerns general transfers and favouritism, and when lifted the window is open equally to all; (3) the appointing authority under the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 always possesses the power to transfer, which in the strict sense cannot be curtailed even vide executive instructions; (4) the power having been exercised for better administration and in good faith, no special permission of the State Government was required. Writ Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending applications closed.

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading : 08.07.2026

¶2

APHC010082672026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4619/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

M SURESH KUMAR, S/O M. GOPALUDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, H.C.1212, VIZIANAGARAM I TOWN P.S. VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237

¶13

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT . 522503

¶14

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.535204

¶15

STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM I TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 535003

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in DO 79120261C.No.4541A12026, dated 7-2-2026 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and the Pass Port, dated 14.2.2026 issued by the Station House Office, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, relieving him from I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the transfer guidelines issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.23, Finance (HRI-Plg AND Policy) Department, dated 15-052025 and consequently declare that the petitioner is not liable for transfer and he is entitled to be continued at I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram till the next date of transfer counseling and pass such other orders.

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings in Court in DO 79/2026/C.NO.454/A/2026, dated 07-2-2026 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and the Pass Port, dated 14-2-2026 issued by the Station House Office, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram with a direction to the Respondents to continue the petitioner at One Town Police Station, Vizianagaram and pass such other orders.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.SODUM ANVESHA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

Whether the order is :

¶27

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶28

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.4619 of 2026

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings in DO 79/2026/C No.454/A/2026, dated 07.02.2026 issued by Respondent No.3, wherein the Petitioner was transferred from I Town P.S., attached to DTC, Vizianagaram to Therlam P.S., on administrative grounds and pleased to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

The facts are as follows;

¶34

The Petitioner was initially selected and appointed as Police Constable (APSP) on 05.10.1990 and thereafter selected and appointed as Police Constable (Civil) on 15.08.1993. While so, the Petitioner was transferred to II Town P.S., Vizianagaram on 01.06.2017 and was again transferred to I Town P.S., Vizianagaram on 22.06.2022 and thereafter, the Petitioner attached to D.T.C. Vizianagaram vide Memo No.206/A1/2022, dated 23.08.2022 and has been discharging his duties to the best of his ability. While so, the impugned order of transfer was issued transferring the Petitioner from I Town P.S., on administrative grounds. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶35

The principal ground urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there is a ban on transfer of employees and without seeking any permission from the State Government, the impugned order cannot be

¶36

¶37

sustained. The other ground is that the impugned order does not contain any valid reasons.

¶38

In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.3, it is stated that one Smt.Y. Gangamma, A.S.I., who worked in D.T.C, Vizianagaram had submitted a representation on 06.07.2025 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram stating that the Petitioner used to sit without shirt during the duty hours and paid deaf ears to the warnings given by Inspector of Police, DTC not to sit like that. It is also stated that the Petitioner told her that she is very beautiful and that he wanted to marry her, which were uncomfortable to her. The said person addressed a letter to the Principal/Addl. SP, DTC about the misbehaviour of the Petitioner.

¶39

Similarly, one Smt. B. Lalitha, Inspector of Police of D.T.C., Vizianagaram also addressed a letter on 06.07.2025 stating that the Petitioner used to sleep in the ladies waiting room. One S. Rama Lakshmi, ASI also spoke about the misbehaviour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is said to have stated that he is single in duty officer room and requested her to sleep in the room. It was also mentioned that the Petitioner was imposed a punishment of PPI for one year without cumulative effect on 14.6.2016 for improper behaviour towards Smt.B. Lalitha.

¶40

The Addl. Superintendent of Police enquired regarding the complaints and noticed that the Petitioner was imposed censure on three occasions on account of negligence in bandobast duty, bigamous marriage and for above

¶41

¶42

mentioned improper behaviour and addressed letter to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram to take necessary action for reprehensible conduct towards women employees. A preliminary enquiry was conducted at the instance of Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and taking into account 15 women employees in I Town P.S., Vizianagaram to Therlam P.S.,

¶43

In the Reply-Affidavit filed by the Petitioner, it was stated that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner before conclusion of such allegations.

¶44

Heard the respective counsels.

¶45

The impugned transfer order was issued on administrative issues and the reasons are explained in the Counter-Affidavit. A reading of the CounterAffidavit shows that there are number of allegations against the Petitioner for his improper behaviour with the women police named above and on account of the complaints received from the women employees.

¶46

In the opinion of this Court, the transfer cannot be faulted for not assigning any reasons as the same is an administrative act. Apart from that, the contention that permission from the Government is required as there is ban on transfers is misplaced as the same is with regard to general transfers and to avoid allegations of favouritism. Further, whenever the ban is lifted for a limited period, the window of opportunity for transfers is available to all in equal measure.. In cases of this nature, the appointing authority under the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 is always having power to transfer

¶47

¶48

and in strict sense, such a power cannot be curtailed even vide executive instructions. As the power of transfer in this case is exercised for the better administration and as the power was exercised in good faith, no special permission from the State Government is required.

¶49

Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned transfer orders and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶50

No order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 08.07.2026

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶57

WRIT PETITION No.4619 of 2026

¶58

Date: 08.07.2026

¶59

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Proceedings in DO 79/2026/C No.454/A/2026, dated 07.02.2026 issued by Respondent No.3 (Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram) transferring the Petitioner from I Town P.S. (attached to DTC, Vizianagaram) to Therlam P.S. on administrative grounds; the Writ Petition also challenges the Pass Port dated 14.2.2026 issued by the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram.¶32
Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram · 2026-02-07
Prior proceeding
Service history: Petitioner selected and appointed as Police Constable (APSP) on 05.10.1990 and thereafter as Police Constable (Civil) on 15.08.1993.¶34
Prior proceeding
Earlier postings: transferred to II Town P.S., Vizianagaram on 01.06.2017; to I Town P.S., Vizianagaram on 22.06.2022; attached to D.T.C., Vizianagaram vide Memo No.206/A1/2022, dated 23.08.2022.¶34
Prior proceeding
Counter-Affidavit of Respondent No.3 discloses a representation dated 06.07.2025 by Smt.Y. Gangamma, A.S.I., who worked in DTC, Vizianagaram, to the Additional Superintendent of Police alleging the Petitioner sat without shirt during duty hours, ignored warnings, told her she was very beautiful and that he wanted to marry her, making her uncomfortable.¶38
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 06.07.2025 by Smt. B. Lalitha, Inspector of Police, D.T.C., Vizianagaram alleging the Petitioner used to sleep in the ladies waiting room; ASI S. Rama Lakshmi also spoke about the Petitioner's misbehaviour (he allegedly stated he was single in the duty officer room and asked her to sleep in the room).¶39
Prior proceeding
Earlier punishment: the Petitioner was imposed a punishment of PPI for one year without cumulative effect on 14.6.2016 for improper behaviour towards Smt.B. Lalitha.¶39
Prior proceeding
The Addl. Superintendent of Police enquired into the complaints and noticed three prior censures on the Petitioner - negligence in bandobast duty, bigamous marriage, and the improper behaviour towards women employees - and addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram to take necessary action for reprehensible conduct towards women employees.¶40
Prior proceeding
A preliminary enquiry was conducted at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and, taking into account the 15 women employees at I Town P.S., the Petitioner came to be transferred to Therlam P.S.¶42
Prior proceeding
Reply-Affidavit of the Petitioner: contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to him before conclusion of the allegations.¶43

M Suresh Kumar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Suresh Kumar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Gopi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kantheti Vennkata Prasad Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Juluri Kanaka Durga Vs Union of India

Ch. Narasimhulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bangaru Venkata Gopinath Vs the State of Ap

B.v.Gowtham Reddy Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh