Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2016. Case: Sanjay Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V.D. Sapkal, Advocate and For Respondents: S.B. Yawalkar, AGP |
| Judges | S. S. Shinde and V. K. Jadhav, JJ. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | May 05, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S. S. Shinde, J.
-
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State.
-
This Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad [for short 'MAT'] in Original Application No. 323 of 2015, and also the order dated 30th May, 2015 passed by respondent No. 2 [Exhibit-A].
-
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent No. 2 to effect the petitioner's mid-tenure transfer from Jalgaon District and/or the Nashik Range is totally in violation and disregard of the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 22N (1) of the Maharashtra Police [Amendment and Continuance] Act, 2014. It is submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is before completion of normal tenure in the Nashik Range and the said transfer is contrary to the policy of the State Government reflected in the Circular dated 18th March, 2015. It is submitted that the petitioner has hardly completed the tenure of three years in the Jalgaon District and/or in the Nashik Range that in view of the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Ordinance No. II of 2015 published on 16th February, 2015, read with the provisions in the Maharashtra Police [Amendment and Continuance] Act, 2014, the petitioner was not due for transfer out of the Jalgaon District and/or of the Nashik Range. Bare reading of the said Ordinance along with the provisions of Section 22N (1) of the said Act shows and establishes that while normal tenure of a Police Officer like the petitioner in one post or office is of two years, the same is of four years and eight years respectively in the District and in the Range. Therefore, though the petitioner is liable to be transferred upon completion of the tenure of two years in one post or office, however, he is not liable to be transferred out of a District and a Range unless and until he completes the tenure of four years and eight years therein respectively. However, the petitioner is transferred though he has not completed tenure of 3 years in the Jalgaon District and/or in the Nashik Range.
-
It is submitted that the provisions of Section 22N of the said Act along with the Ordnance dated 16th February, 2015, if read conjointly, those not only speaks about normal tenure of the Police Officer in a post, District and Range, but those also admittedly speak of certain contingencies upon existence of which only a mid tenure and/or a midterm transfer of a Police Officer can be effected. For effecting a mid-tenure transfer of a Police Officer like the present petitioner existence of the contingencies mentioned in the proviso of Section 22N is mandatorily required and further even as far as a mid-term transfer is...
To continue reading
Request your trial