Back
1984 Supreme(SC) 136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., D.P. MADON AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
State of U.P. and others, Appellant
Versus
Jagdeo Singh, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2540 of 1977
Decided on 1-5-1984.
PRADIP MISHRA, Prithvi Raj, S.C.PATEL, S.K.KULSHRESTHA, SHOBHA DIXIT
Headnote:
Police Act, 5 of 1861 - Section 7 (d) - Working as a Station House Officer - Loss of special emolument - Respondent was working as a Station House Officer at Police Station - It is well known that Station House Officers are in overall charge of police stations to which they are attached - Under certain departmental instructions issued , a Station House Officer is entitled to a special emolument of Rs. 15/- per month while he is in charge of a Police station - By an order dated respondent was transferred from Police Station to Police Station as a Second Officer - He protested against that posting since it involved loss of special emolument - Later on, he was transferred - He made a representation that he was entitled to be posted as a Station House Officer, but that representation was rejected. on ground that his name was not approved for posting as a Station House Officer in district – Held, provisions of Sec. 7 (d) of Police Act, 5 of 1861, are therefore attracted. Sec. 7 (d) provides to extent material that Inspector General or any other officer named therein may award to a member of Police Force any one or more of the punishments mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) if he is found to have discharged his duties in a careless or negligent manner - Respondent was drawing a special emolument as a Station House Officer of which he was deprived by way of punishment - On this limited ground we confirm judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad dated - It clear that any and every transfer of a police officer from one police station to another will not amount to punishment, even if it involves loss of a special emolument - If a police officer is transferred from one charge to another in ordinary course of administrative exigencies, provisions of Section 7 of Police Act will not be attracted because a transfer simpliciter is not punishment - It is only when the transfer is made by way punishment as in instant case that Section 7 would come into play - Appeal is accordingly dismissed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The case involves a police officer who was working as a Station House Officer and was entitled to a special emolument of Rs. 15/- per month while in charge of a police station (!) .
- The officer was transferred from one police station to another as a Second Officer, which he protested against due to the loss of his special emolument (!) (!) .
- The transfer was later followed by another transfer, and the officer made a representation requesting to be posted as a Station House Officer, which was rejected on the grounds that his name was not approved for such a posting (!) .
- The officer filed a writ petition challenging the transfer order, claiming it was punitive in nature (!) .
- The court examined whether the transfer involved a punishment under the relevant police regulations, specifically Section 7(d) of the Police Act, which permits disciplinary action including deprivation of special emoluments if the officer is found negligent or careless in duty (!) (!) .
- It was held that not every transfer involves punishment; transfers made in the ordinary course of administrative exigencies are not subject to the provisions of Section 7 (!) .
- However, if a transfer is made as a form of punishment, especially when it results in loss of emolument, then Section 7 applies (!) .
- The court confirmed that in this case, the transfer was made as a punitive measure due to negligence, and therefore, the provisions of Section 7(d) were applicable (!) (!) .
- The appeal was dismissed, affirming that transfers made as punishment are subject to the restrictions and provisions of the relevant police regulations (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
The respondent was working as a Station House Officer at the Chandpur Police Station in Uttar Pradesh. It is well known that Station House Officers are in the overall charge of police stations to which they are attached. Under certain departmental instructions issued in Uttar Pradesh, a Station House Officer is entitled to a special emolument of Rs. 15/- per month while he is in charge of a Police station, By an order dated August 21, 1973, the respondent was transferred from the Chandpur Police Station to the Kotwali Police Station as a Second Officer, He protested against that posting since it involved the loss of the special emolument. Later on, he was transferred to Fatehgarh. He made a representation that he was entitled to be posted as a Station House Officer, Fatehpur, but that representation was rejected. on the ground that his name was not approved for posting as a Station House Officer in the district of Fatehgarh. The respondent was transferred. against as a Second Officer to Kanpur. Finding, that his representation had been rejected, he. filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad asking that the order transferring him as a Second Officer of a Police Station be quashed. The writ -petition having been allowed by the High Court, the State- of U. P., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, have filed this appeal.
2. It is clear from paragraphs 40 and 41 of the very counter-affidavit filed in the High Court on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the appellant herein, that the respondent was found negligent in the discharge of his duties, As a consequence the respondent was "reverted" from the post in which he was In charge of the Police Station and a Misconduct Entry was made in his character roll on. 5-5-1971. It was because of the finding of negligence against the respondent and the Misconduct Entry that he was transferred from Fatehpur to the Fatehgarh Police Station in July, 1973 where he was posted as a Second Officer and not as a Station House officer. The provisions of Sec. 7 (d) of the Police Act, 5 of 1861, are therefore attracted. Sec. 7 (d) provides to the extent material that the Inspector General or any other officer named therein may award to a member of the Police Force any one or more of the punishments mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) if he is found to have discharged his duties in a careless or negligent manner. Clause (d) of Sec. 7 speaks of the punishment of removal from any office of special emolument. The respondent was drawing a special emolument as a Station House Officer of which he was deprived by way of punishment. On this limited ground we confirm the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated August 25, 1976.
3. We must make it clear that any and every transfer of a police officer from one police station to another will not amount to punishment, even if it involves the loss of a special emolument. if a police officer is transferred from one charge to another in the ordinary course of administrative exigencies, the provisions of Section 7 of the Police Act will not be attracted because a transfer simpliciter is not punishment. It is only when the transfer is made by way punishment, as in the instant case, that Section 7 would come into play.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 1115
