Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 57117, 57418, 57726, 61617 and 62469 of 2012. Case: Chandra Shekhar Rawat and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 57117, 57418, 57726, 61617 and 62469 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vijay Gautam, Adv. And For Respondents: C.S.C. |
| Judges | Tarun Agarwala, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Citation | 2013 (2) ADJ 459 |
| Judgement Date | December 03, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the transfer Order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the D.I.G./ Deputy Superintendent of Police Establishment, U.P., Police Head Quarters, Allahabad and the consequential order dated 25.10.2012 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Civil Police, Jhansi to Government Railway Police, Lucknow (G.R.P.). The petitioner is a constable in the police force having been appointed in 1987 and has completed more than 10 years of service. The grounds of challenge is, that the transfer order is in violation of the first part of Regulation 525 of the U.P. Police Regulations, namely, that the petitioner has worked for more than ten years in the police force and therefore cannot be transferred any longer. The second ground urged is, that the second part of Regulation 525 is not applicable inasmuch as it is only applicable to a police officer and is not applicable to a Constable, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P. and titters, 2008 (2) ADJ 484. The third, ground of attack is, that the transfer order was passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police /Additional Superintendent of Police, who is neither the competent authority nor the appointing authority of the petitioner and therefore, the transfer is perse illegal and was liable to be quashed.
2. Counter-affidavit and the rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged and consequently, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The controversy relating to the transfer of a police constable is going on for several years and from time to time a large number of writ; petitions are being filed, which have been decided inspite of which new grounds of attack is coming before the Court. It has, therefore, become necessary to decide the writ petition so that the controversy is resolved and the transfer, if valid, are effected. It has come to the notice of the Court that on account of the interim orders being passed, constables who were posted in G.R.P. are not being transferred back to the Civil Police inspite of a condition attached to their transfer orders that they would be sent back to the Civil Police upon completion of three years of service in G.R.P.
4. In the present case, the controversy is with regard to a Constable being transferred from Civil Police to G.R.P. The entire attack is on the interpretation of Regulation 525 of the Regulations. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:
525. Constable of less than two years' service may be transferred by the Superintendent of Police from the armed to the civil police or vice versa. Foot police constables may be transferred to the mounted police at their own request. Any civil police constable of more than two and less than ten years' service may be transferred to the armed police and vice versa by the Superintendent for a period not exceeding six months in any one year. All armed police constables of over two years' service and civil police constables of over two and under ten years' service; may be transferred to the other branch of the force for any period with the permission of the Deputy Inspector-General.
In all other cases the transfer of Police officers from one branch of the force to another or from the police service of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh Police requires the...
To continue reading
Request your trial