Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading : 08.07.2026 APHC010082672026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 4619/2026 Between: 1. M SURESH KUMAR, S/O M. GOPALUDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, H.C.1212, VIZIANAGARAM I TOWN P.S. VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT . 522503 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.535204 4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM I TOWN POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 535003 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 15-05- 2025 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. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.4619 of 2026 ORDER: 1. 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. 2. The facts are as follows; 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. 3. 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 4 sustained. The other ground is that the impugned order does not contain any valid reasons. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 5 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., 7. 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. 8. Heard the respective counsels. 9. The impugned transfer order was issued on administrative issues and the reasons are explained in the Counter-Affidavit. A reading of the Counter- Affidavit 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. 10. 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 6 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. 11. 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. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 08.07.2026 IS 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.4619 of 2026 Date: 08.07.2026 IS