1. In these two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are serving as constables, have challenged the orders of their transfer out of the District of Ahmedabad.

2. The case of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 12765 of 2010 is that he is transferred in connection with the Hooch Tragedy (Lattha Kand) with other police officers by impugned order dated 24.9.2010 in the name of public interest. In the said order, it is stated that his transfer is as per the order dated 20.9.2010 passed by the Director General of Police, Gandhinagar. It is his case that on the allegation of his involvement in the Lattha Kand tragedy, he is transferred to Jamnagar without holding any inquiry against him and without there being any administrative exigencies for such transfer at the transferred place. It is his case that since the Lattha Kand was highlighted in print and electronic media, he was also included in the mass transfer effected by the respondent authorities.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner has pointed out that after the petition was filed, the petitioner was departmentally proceeded and imposed punishment.

4. In Special Civil Application No. 3553 of 2011, impugned order dated 26.10.2010 is passed by Respondent No.2 Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City transferring the petitioner from Ahmedabad to Amreli as per the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the Director General of Police in connection with Hooch Tragedy (Lattha Kand). The case of the petitioner is that he has been serving as unarmed police constable in Ahmedabad City since 1983 and he was served with charge sheet dated 16.10.2010 alleging his connection with the bootleggers of the city. After serving the charge-sheet, the petitioner is transferred by the impugned order. It is his case that he is being the police constable, could not have been transferred out of Ahmedabad District, except to meet with emergent exigencies at the transferred place. It is his case that his transfer is by way of punishment as alleged in the charge-sheet served to him. His further case is that as he has been punished departmentally pursuant to inquiry, the cause to continue transfer order does not survive.

5. Both the petitions are opposed by filing reply affidavit on behalf of the respondents to which the petitioners have also filed rejoinder. Stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that since the petitioners were involved in Lattha Kand tragedy, they are transferred in public interest. It is stated that powers are exercised under Bombay Public Act and the Manual and the petitioners have no right to challenge the transfer orders on the ground that their transfer is not for administrative exigencies but the same is by punishment.

6. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.12765 of 2010 and learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat with Mr. Kaivan K. Patel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.3553 of 2011 made common submissions as under:

(1) The transfer orders of the petitioners clearly record that the transfer of the petitioners is in connection with hooch tragedy and thus it is not for administrative exigency but by way of punishment.

(2) Since the petitioners have been departmentally punished, the cause for transfer does not survive.

(3) The reasons for transfer of the petitioners are not germane to the excise of powers under Section 28 of the Police Act, 1951 (‘the Act’ for short).

(4) It is passed in the name of public interest without reaching to the satisfaction about the requirement of service of the petitioners at the transferred place.

(5) The affidavit in reply clearly states that the transfer of the petitioners is in exercise of powers under Rule 152 of the Police Manual and Section 28(1) of the Act. These two provisions do not authorize either the State Government or the Director Genera