High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.SRINIVASAN,A.L.VAIDYA
PRITHI PAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
CWP No. 252 of 1997
Decided On : 07/28/1997
POLICE TRANSFER - SECTION 22 OF THE POLICE ACT - PUNJAB POLICE RULES - TRANSFER OF HEAD CONSTABLES - VALIDITY - PUBLIC INTEREST - MALA FIDES - CONSENT OF HEAD CONSTABLES - CADRE - INTER-DISTRICT TRANSFER - AUTHORITY - SANCTION OF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE - HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF RULES 12.26 AND 14.15.
Fact of the Case:
Head Constables challenged their transfer order issued by the Director General of Police, claiming it was without their consent, violated the Punjab Police Rules, and lacked public interest. They argued that the transfer required the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and that there were separate cadres for Head Constables in each district.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the entire police force in the State is one and cannot be divided into different cadres based on Districts. The transfer of Head Constables from one District to another is permissible under Rule 12.26 of the Punjab Police Rules, and the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police is not required when the transfer is ordered by an authority higher than the Deputy Inspector General of Police, such as the Director General of Police. The Court found no mala fides in the transfer and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer of Head Constables from one District to another is permissible under the Punjab Police Rules? 2. Whether the transfer of Head Constables requires the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police? 3. Whether the transfer of Head Constables was in public interest and free from mala fides?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 22 of the Police Act and Rule 1.4 of the Punjab Police Rules to hold that the entire police force in the State is one and cannot be divided into different cadres based on Districts. 2. The Court interpreted Rule 12.26 and Rule 14.15 of the Punjab Police Rules to hold that the transfer of Head Constables from one District to another is permissible and does not require the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of Police when the transfer is ordered by an authority higher than the Deputy Inspector General of Police, such as the Director General of Police. 3. The Court found no mala fides in the transfer and held that it was in public interest.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions challenging the transfer of Head Constables.
M. SRINIVASAN, C.J.—The petitioners were transferred by a general transfer order dated 9-6-1997. The same was challenged by these petitioners before the Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 9- 7-1997 the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner. The order which contains the reasoning of the Tribunal is the order relating to Chain Singh and others. The Tribunal has opined that Section 22 of the I Police Act shows that the entire police force in the State is one which can be employed in any part of the general police district. It is also further found by the Tribunal that in so far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, there is no separate Railway Police District and there is only one general Police District for the whole State which is the provincial Police District. After referring to para 12.22 of the Punjab Police Rules and para 12.26 read with para 14.15, the Tribunal has opined that the transferred are well within the jurisdiction of the authorities concerned and there is no want of power in the authorities to transfer these Head-constables. It is also found that there is no allegation of any specific mala fides against any of the respondents and thus the order of transfer does not require interference,
2. In these writ petitions the order of the Tribunal is challenged. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are district cadres with regard to constables and Head Constables and in so far as the Head Constables of one District are concerned, they cannot be transferred to another District, either without their consent or without following the procedure prescribed in para 12 26 of the Punjab Police Rules. Secondly, it is argued that the Tribunal is in error in thinking that the entire police force forms part of the one cadre. Thirdly, it is contended that the transfers in these cases are not in public interest as they are not warranted.
3. In so far as the first contention is concerned, there is no merit whatever in the same. Section 2 of the Police Act reads, in so far as it is relevant, as follows "2. 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 to time be ordered by the State Government."
4. Paragraph 1.4 of the Punjab Police Rules Provides that 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, to police duty anywhere within the province and no sub-division of the force territorially or by classes, such as mounted and foot police, affects this principle. A perusal of Section 2 and paragraph 1.5, referred to above, clearly shows that the entire police force in the State is one and it cannot be said to be a different police force or forming different cadres on the basis of the Districts. No doubt, the cadres exists with respect to hierarchy of the posts and not with respect to the same post in each district.
5. Reliance is placed upon the provision in paragraph 12.1(4) which reads : Head constables and constables in each district shall be borne on district rolls and shall receive district constabulary number. Our attention is also drawn to Para 13.1, which provides for promotion from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same rank to be made by selection to be tempered by seniority. it is provided in sub-clause (3) that for the purpose of regulating promotion amongst enrolled police officers six promotion lists A,B,C,D, E and F will be maintained and lists A,B,C & D shall be maintained in each District as prescribed in Rules 13.6, 13.7m 13.8 and 13.9. It is also pointed out that in Rule 13.8, list C relates to promotions of Head Constables. It is provided that in each District, a list shall be maintained in
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.