Back
2004 Supreme(All) 2249
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shishir Kumar, J.
Mukesh Singh
Versus
State of U.P.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 26447 of 2004
Decided On : 07 December 2004
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 26447 Of 2004
ANUPAM KUMAR, H.R.Mishra, P.S.BAGHEL, Vijay Gautam,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer is an exigency of service, and the competent authority has the discretion to decide on transfers. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim a vested right to work at a particular place, and transfers on administrative grounds or public interest do not require the same level of scrutiny as disciplinary actions.
Headnote:
Transfer - Public Interest - [Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 24, Police Act, 1861] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to transfer and posting of government servants, emphasizing that transfer is an exigency of service and the competent authority has the discretion to decide when and where a public servant should be transferred. The court cited various judgments to support the principle that an employee holding a transferable post cannot claim a vested right to work at a particular place and that the court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting unless it is contrary to statutory provisions or malafide. The court also highlighted that transfers on administrative grounds or public interest do not require the same level of scrutiny as disciplinary actions, and the department should be given latitude to enforce discipline and ensure smooth functioning of the administration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Inspector, challenged his transfer from Police Station G. R. P., Varanasi to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Allahabad, alleging political pressure and personal interest behind the transfer. The petitioner also cited health and family reasons to oppose the transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was made in public interest and not on political grounds, as alleged by the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner's performance was assessed, and the transfer was based on the need for improvement in the crime and law and order situation at the petitioner's previous posting.
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer was politically motivated, whether it was in public interest, and whether the petitioner's health and family reasons justified opposing the transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfer is an exigency of service, and the competent authority has the discretion to decide on transfers. The court emphasized that an employee holding a transferable post cannot claim a vested right to work at a particular place and that transfers on administrative grounds or public interest do not require the same level of scrutiny as disciplinary actions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order was discharged, with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 9. 7. 2004 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to transfer the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 9. 7. 2004. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is working as Inspector (Station House Officer) at Police Station G. R. P. , Varanasi, has been transferred by order dated 9. 7. 2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) from G. R. P. , Varanasi to office of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Allahabad.
( 2 ) THE ground of the challenge by the petitioner regarding petitioners transfer is that the petitioner has been transferred only on political ground and on the basis of the instructions issued by the Chief Minister, on the request of the respondent No, 5 who is an office bearer of the ruling party. The further case of the petitioner is that one Dr. K. P. Yadav who has been arrayed as respondent No. 5 wrote a letter dated 29. 5. 2004 to the Honble The Chief Minister Uttar pradesh, stating that one Sri S. N. Yadav, Inspector who is presently attached to G. R. P. , mukhyalaya, Allahabad, his daughters marriage has been arranged with the son of Shri S. N. Yadav, so he be posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, G. R. P. , Varanasi Cantt, and due to which, his honour shall be enhanced. On the aforesaid letter, one of the Personal Secretary on the instruction of the Honble Chief Minister has put a note for A. D. G. (Additional Director general of Police, Railways) to do accordingly. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer and has stated that the said order of the transfer has been passed on the political pressure and is politically motivated and the same is not in public interest but for the personal interest and only to accommodate the respondent No. 4. It has also been stated that though in the impugned order it has been said that the transfer of the petitioner is being passed in public interest but the same has been passed on the instructions of the Chief Minister to oblige respondent No. 5 Dr. K. P. Yadav. On the behest of the aforesaid fact, the respondent No. 2 has passed the order dated 9. 7. 2004, and has misused his position. It has also been further submitted by the petitioner that there was no complaint against the petitioner by any one from the public or police personnel. It has also been stated that the petitioner has some unavoidable hardship, regarding his own illness as the petitioner has met with an accident on 9. 9. 2003 and has got some head injury, since then the petitioner is under going treatment at Alakhnanda Hospital, Varanasi by the Specialist Neurp surgeon Dr. R. P. Singh and the doctor advised the petitioner to complete supervision for one year under him. The further other grounds regarding the studies of the children have also been mentioned in the writ petition. It has also been stated that the order of transfer has been passed in the mid-session against the transfer policy as the transfer order, if any, should have been passed on or before 30th June of every year.
( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of transfer before this Court and this Honble Court on 20. 7. 2004 was pleased to stay the order of transfer and has directed that the petitioner be continued as Inspector (Incharge) at Police Station, G. R. P. , Varanasi and paid his salary and the time for counter-affidavit was also granted to the respondents.
( 4 ) IT appears that the respondent No. 4 who has been posted in the place of the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by Honble Single Judge, therefor, a Special Appeal No. 860 of 2004 was filed before this Court and this Court was pleased to allow the appeal. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Div
