ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud; CJ, Uma Nath Singh, Dr. D.K. Arora, JJ.
Om Prakash Singh Constable No. 892530207 & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept., Lucknow & Ors. -Respondent
Special Appeal No. 616 of 2011
Decided On : 07-03-2014
Transfer - Police Regulations - Regulation 525 - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in the context of transferring police constables from one branch to another within the police force.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the interpretation and application of Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in the context of transferring police constables from one branch to another within the police force. The petitioners, constables of the civil police with more than 10 years of service, challenged their transfer to the government railway police.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed Regulation 525 and its provisions regarding the transfer of constables based on their years of service. It also considered the definition of 'police officer' in the Regulations and the Police Act, 1861. The Court referred to previous judgments and held that a constable with more than ten years of service can be transferred to another branch of the police force, including the government railway police, in accordance with Regulation 525.
Issues: The main issue was whether constables of the civil police with more than ten years of service can be transferred to the government railway police in compliance with Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Regulation 525, the definition of 'police officer' in the Regulations and the Police Act, 1861, and the principles of statutory construction. The Court held that the transfer of constables with more than ten years of service to another branch of the police force is permissible under Regulation 525.
Final Decision: The Court answered the questions referred to the Full Bench by affirming that police constables with more than ten years of service can be transferred to another branch, including the government railway police, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.
On 2 September 2011, a Division Bench of this Court has referred two questions of law for consideration of the Full Bench:
(1) Whether a police constable working in the civil police who has rendered service for more than ten years cannot be transferred to another branch in view of the provisions of Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.1
(2) Whether the government railway police and civil police constitute one cadre or different service cadres.
2. The controversy before the Court revolves around the provisions of Regulation 525 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations. Regulation 525 provides as follows:
"525. Constable of less than two years' service may be transferred by the Superintendent of Police from the armed to the civil police or vice versa. Foot police constables may be transferred to the mounted police at their own request. Any civil police constable of more than two and less than ten years' service may be transferred to the armed police and vice versa by the Superintendent for a period not exceeding six months in any one year. All armed police constables of over two years' service and civil police constables of over two and under ten years' service may be transferred to the other branch of the force for any period with the permission of the Deputy Inspector-General.
In all other cases the transfer of Police Officers from one branch of the force to another or from the police service of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh Police requires the sanction of the Inspector-General.
3. In order to facilitate an analysis of Regulation 525, it would, at the outset, be appropriate to breakdown several parts of the Regulation into separate sentences. We now proceed to do so:
(i) A constable of less than two years' service may be transferred by the Superintendent of Police from the armed police to the civil police or from the civil police to the armed police;
(ii) Foot police constables may be transferred to the mounted police at their own request;
(iii) A civil police constable with more than two years' service but less than ten years' service may be transferred to the armed police and vice versa by the Superintendent of Police for a period not exceeding six months in one year;
(iv) Armed police constables with over two years' service may be transferred to the other branch of the force with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General;
(v) Civil police constables of over two years' service and under 10 years' service may be transferred to the other branch of the force with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General; and
(vi) In all other cases transfers of police officers from one branch of the force to another or from the police service of other provinces to the Uttar Pradesh Police requires the sanction of the Inspector General.
4. The petitioners before the Court are constables of the civil police who have put in more than 10 years of service. The orders which they have challenged are orders of transfer from the civil police to the government railway police. Hence, the first question which has been framed for the decision of the Full Bench arises from the submission of the petitioners that constables of the civil police who have put in more than ten years' service cannot be transferred to the government railway police.
5. The first paragraph of Regulation 525, inter alia, stipulates conditions of transfer of constables from the civil police to the armed police and vice versa in a situation where they have put in varying period of service, these being (i) service of not less than two years; (ii) service of more than two years but less than ten years. Where a constable has put in less than two years of service, Regulation 525 enables his transfer from the civil police to the armed police or vice versa, the condition being that the transfer has to be by the Superintendent of Police. Where a ci
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.