IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders.

Headnote:(a) Indian Police Act 1861 – Sections 1,2 and 4 – State police is one integral unit and does not consist of separate independent units. (Para 10)
        (b) Punjab Police rules 1934 – Rule 1.5 – Police officers constitute one police force and are liable to be posted anywhere in the State. (Para 13)
        (c) Service Law – Transfer – Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service – Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. (Para 14)
        AIR 1996 SC 11 – Relied upon
        1998 Suppl. (1) SCC 679; (2003) 10 SCC 14 – Distinguished
        (d) Judicial Review – Judges must observe judicial restraint and must not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the legislature or the executive. (Para 17)
        JT 2008(3) SC 221; JT 2008(3) SC 221
       Facts of the case:
        1. The respondents herein were serving in various districts in the State of Haryana as Constables, Head Constables, Exemptee Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors.
        2. They were ordered to be transferred to other districts and ranges by the Inspector General of Police. The respondents challenged the transfer orders contending that in view of the Punjab Police rules so far as Constables, Head Constables and Exemptee Constables are concerned, they could not be transferred outside the district, and so far as ASI and SIs are concerned, they could not be transferred outside the range.
        3. This contention has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
        The impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Courts should exercise judicial restraint and be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders of police personnel unless they are clearly illegal (!) (!) .
The entire police force under the State is considered one integrated unit, and the administrative control lies with the Inspector-General of Police, emphasizing that the police do not consist of separate independent units (!) (!) (!) .
The Punjab Police rules clarify that police officers constitute one police force liable to be posted anywhere within the State, and territorial or class-based subdivisions do not affect this principle (!) (!) .
Transfer of police personnel from one district to another or from one range to another is permissible, provided it is done with the necessary sanctions from the appropriate authorities, and such transfers are considered an incident of service (!) .
Courts generally should not interfere with administrative decisions regarding transfers unless there is a clear violation of legal or fundamental rights (!) (!) .
Decisions on transfers are primarily within the discretion of the State authorities, who are best placed to assess law and order requirements, and interference by courts can hinder administrative functioning (!) (!) .
The specific contention that police officers cannot be transferred outside their district or range, as claimed by the respondents, was rejected, reaffirming that such transfers are within the lawful administrative powers of the authorities (!) (!) (!) .
The relevant legal framework and rules support the view that police officers are liable for service anywhere within the State, and transfer orders are valid unless they are manifestly illegal or violate legal rights (!) (!) .
The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining judicial restraint in administrative matters like police transfers to ensure effective governance and law enforcement (!) (!) .
The appellate court set aside the High Court's judgment, which had restricted transfers based on the respondents' interpretation of police rules, and dismissed the writ petitions, endorsing the broad discretion of the administrative authorities (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 51.5.2006 in CWP Nos. 7695, 7607, 7665, 7837, 8636, 8704, 8814, 9117, 6941, 8018 and 8310 of 2006.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The respondents herein were serving in various districts in the State of Haryana as Constables, Head Constables, Exemptee Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors (hereinafter in short as ASI and SI, respectively). They were ordered to be transferred to other districts and ranges by the Inspector General of Police. The respondents challenged the transfer orders contending that in view of the Punjab Police rules so far as Constables, Head Constables and Exemptee Constables are concerned, they could not be transferred outside the district, and so far as ASI and SIs are concerned, they could not be transferred outside the range.

5. This contention has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court and hence these appeals.

6. With respect, we are unable to agree with the High Court.

7. Section 1 of the Indian Police Act 1861 defines a ‘general police district’ as follows :

“the words `general police district’ shall embrace any presidency, State of place, or any part of any presidency, State or place, in which this Act shall be ordered to take effect”.

8. Section 2 of the Act states as follows :

“Constitution of the force. - The entire police establishment under a State government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be one police force and shall be formally enrolled, and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner, as shall from time be ordered by the State Government”.

9. Section 4 of the Act states as follows:

“Inspector-General of Police, etc. - the administration of the police throughout a general police-district shall be vested in an officer to be styled the Inspector-General of Police, and in such Deputy Inspectors-General and Assistant Inspectors-General as to the (State Government) shall seem fit.

The administration of the police throughout the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the district shall, under the general control and direction of such Magistrate, be vested in a District Superintendent and such Assistant District Superintendents as the (State Government) shall consider necessary”.

10. Thus a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Police Act clearly shows that the State police is one integral unit and does not consist of separate independent units. The overall administrative control of the police in the State is with the Inspector-General of Police (now the Director-General of Police).

11. We may now also consider the relevant Rules in the Punjab Police rules 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). Rule 1.4 of the Rules states as follows :

“Rule 1.4 - Administrative Division: - The districts of the province are grouped in Ranges and the administration of all police within each such range is vested in a Deputy Inspector General under the control of the Inspector- General of Police.

The training school is under the district control of the Inspector-General subject to such delegation of powers as he may make to one or other of the range Deputy Inspector General. The Criminal Investigation Department is administered by a Deputy Inspector General, who also supervises the Finger Print Bureau”.

Rule 1.5 - Limits of jurisdiction and liability to transfer - All police officers appointed or enrolled in either of the two general police districts constitute one police force and are liable to, and legally empowered for, police duty, anywhere within the province. No sub-division of the force territorially or by classes, such as mounted and foot police, affects this principle.

Every police officer shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or outside the State of Haryana and in any organization under t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 954

IMPORTANT POINT Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders.