SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(All) 178

[2009(2) ADJ 607]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
BHANU PRATAP .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ......Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 1577, 1579, 1581, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1586 and 1587 of 2009, decided on 21st January, 2009)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Vijay Gautam for the Petitioner; S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Transfer—Order of—Passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police—Having powers to transfer constables within the Zone—Petitioner, a police constable ordered to joint at transferred place at Bulandshahr and Baghpat—There was no pleading, or complaint by petitioner, with regard to any arbitrariness, discrimination, or political interference in those transfers—Thus, respondents have not violated recommendations of Apex Court in Prakash Singh's case—Held, Court disposed of petition, with a direction that in case petitioners have any grievance with regard to their transfer, they can raise their issues for decision by Police Establishment Board constituted for that purpose. [Paras 11, 12, 13 and 14]

       

JUDGMENT

Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel appears for the respondents.

2. By these writ petitions the petitioners serving as constables in civil police and posted at Ghaziabad have prayed for setting aside their transfer orders dated 2.1.2009 made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone-respondent No. 3; and the orders dated 6.1.2009 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad-respondent 4 relieving the petitioners to join at the transferred places at Bulandshahar and Baghpat (within the Meerut Range, Meerut) by 8.1.2009.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer orders have not been made or approved by the Police Establishment Board constituted by the State Government in terms of the Government Order dated 12th March, 2008, in compliance of the recommendations of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 1. He submits that the transfer orders are thus violative of the directions of the Supreme Court and the orders of the State Government dated 12th March, 2008 constituting the Police Establishment Boards, in which in para 2, a Board consisting of (1) Inspector General of Police (Establishment) as Chairman (2) Dy. Inspector General of Police (Establishment) (3) the Superintendent of Police (Karmik) and (4) Addl. Superintendent of Police/Dy. Superintendent of Police (Karmik), as members have been constituted. The transfer orders were not issued, nor have the approval of this Board, constituted for the officers of the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police and below, including constables.

4. Learned Standing Counsel would contend, after seeking instructions from the department that the Police Establishment Boards were constituted by Government Order dated 12th March, 2008. The Government Order states that so far as Indian Police Service and Provincial Civil Service, upto the level of Addl. Superintendent of Police, a Civil Service Board is already in place in the State of U.P. constituted Government Order dated 19th May, 2007. With regard to subordinate police officer in para 2 the State Government has constituted four Police Establishment Board at different level for office in the categories (a) Asstt. Superintendent of Police (b) Deputy Superintendent of Police, (c) Inspectors of Police, and (d) Sub Inspectors and the officers below the rank of Sub Inspectors of Police. By a subsequent Government Order dated 27th November, 2008 the State Government has after reiterating the Constitution of Police Establishment Boards by Government Order dated 12.3.2008, clarified that in the Inspector General Zones the Inspector General of Police, and in the Dy. Inspector General Range the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range shall continue to discharge their powers of transfers in their jurisdictions under para 520 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The Police Establishment Board will decide on the interzonal transfers of these officers.

5. Shri Vijay Gautam submits that the recommendation No. 5 of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singhs case provides for constitution of Police Establishment Board, which shall decide all transfer, posting and promotions and other service related matters of the officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He submits that the transfer can be made only by the Police Establishment Board constituted for the purpose. The clarification in the Government Order dated 27th November, 2008 are in violation the directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singhs case and should not be considered for its implementation by the High Court.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Supreme Court did not provide for transfers to be made by the Police Establishment Board and that the directions have to be interpreted reasonably, in the context in which they were made. The Police Establishment Board is required to decide upon the tr
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top