IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.105 of 2025 Reserved on: 24.06.2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 ________________________________________________H__________

Anil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________

Coram: o Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ Yes.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.

Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi oChauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

__________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sh arma, Judge Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Sub-

Divisgional Police Officer, Baijnath, District kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is iaggrieved of order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order of the petitioner, issued in violation of the transfer policy, deserves to be

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

quashed and set-aside. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner stated that impugned transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of political interferen.ce and as such, needs to be interfered. He submitted that since petitioner ordered to issue Challan against son of M.L.A. of the area concerned, competent authority on the basis of recommendations maode by M.L.A. of the area concerned, proceeded to pass impugned transfer order. While making this Court Peruse Section 12 of Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the Act’), Mr. Sharma submitted that ordinarily the tenure of Sub- Divisional Police Officer (for short, ‘SDPO’) is of two years and if an SDPO is to be transferred before expiry of two years, then reasons are to be recorded in writing in terms of provisions of the said Act, however, impugnedh transfer order nowhere suggests compliance of aforesaid procedure. He further submitted that as per Section 43 of the Act, administration of the Police throughout the State shall vest in the Director General of Police and State Government has no role whatsoever in the exercise of administrative power by Director General of Police, who is the only competent authority to issue transfer order of a Police Officer. While referring to Section 56 of the Act, Mr. Sharma submitted that otherwise also, transfer of the Police Officer can only be recommended by Police Establishment Committee headed by Director General of Police comprising of four senior police officers, not below rank of Inspector General of Police, nominated by the Director General of Police, but in the instant case, procedure as laid down in Sections 12 and 56 of the Act has not been followed, rather merely on the dictate of a political person, respondents/State has proceeded to transfer the petit.ioner, who had yet not completed minimum tenure of two years at the present place of posting.

3. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Koahol, learned Additional Advocate General while justifying the impugned action of respondents vehemently argued that there is nothing to suggest that impugned transfer order has been passedu on the recommendations of any political person, as alleged. He fuorther submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that impugned transfer of the petitioner has been effected on account of the fact that petitioner herein had some altercation with the son of M.Lh.A. of the area concerned, rather, impugned transfer has been ordered on administrative grounds.

4. Mr. Jagdi