Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8999
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Maninder S. Bhatti, J
Guru Datt Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 24940 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjay Agrawal, Nikhil Tiwari
For the Respondents: Pradeep Singh, S.R. Tamrakar, Ankit Chopra, Brijesh Kumar Choubey
An Additional Superintendent of Police, holding a rank higher than a Deputy Superintendent of Police, is not governed by the Police Establishment Board transfer guidelines mandated for officers at or below the Deputy SP level. Administrative transfers pending departmental inquiry are not inherently punitive or stigmatic.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Challenge to transfer order - Petitioner posted as Additional Superintendent of Police - Challenged transfer on ground that Police Establishment Board (PEB) did not recommend transfer and tenure not completed - Held, PEB scope limited to officers at/below Dy. SP rank - Additional SP is a higher/distinct rank - Transfer is incident of service and cannot be interfered with unless malafide - Administrative exigency like pending disciplinary proceedings is a valid ground for transfer - Not punitive or stigmatic.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Deputy SP posted as Additional SP, was transferred from Seoni to Bhopal. The petitioner challenged this, alleging non-compliance with the norms established in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, arguing the PEB did not authorize it and that he had not completed his tenure.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the PEB power is restricted to Deputy SPs and below. As the petitioner held the higher rank of Additional SP, approval by the PEB was not required under the relevant precedent. Furthermore, administrative exigencies, including pending disciplinary investigations, justify transfer orders, which are not punitive if they don't explicitly cast stigma in the order itself.
Issues: Whether an order transferring an Additional SP requires prior approval by the Police Establishment Board per the Prakash Singh guidelines, and whether a transfer prompted by pending disciplinary proceedings constitutes a punitive order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the transfer petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments based on prakash singh regarding pb authority. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. state argument regarding rank differentiation and service incidents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. peb mandate is strictly for officers up to deputy sp. (Para 10 , 13 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. additional sp is a distinct higher rank, exempting peb oversight. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. administrative transfer due to pending inquiries is not punitive. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30) |
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the impugned Transfer Order dated 27th June 2025 (ANNEXURE P-4), transferring the Petitioner (At Serial No 35) from Addl. SP, Seoni, to Police Headquarters, Bhopal.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue his services as Additional Superintendent of Police at Seoni, District Seoni, until his superannuation in 2026.
iii. Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this petition."
2. The facts of the present case in a nutshell are that, the petitioner herein who was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on a substantive basis vide an order dated 31.07.2023 was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police. The petitioner vide impugned order dated 27.06.2025 contained in Annexure P/4 is being transferred from Seoni to Bhopal. The impugned order of transfer is under challenge in the present petition.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner is unsustainable having been passed without recommendation of the Police Establishment Board which has been constituted in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and Others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1. It is contended by the senior counsel that in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra), the State has issued a Circular dated 14.02.2007. As per the said Circular, there exists Constitution of a Police Establishment Board which is empowered to take decision regarding transfer of an employee of the Police Department upto the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. As the petitioner's substantive post is Deputy Superintendent of Police, he could not have been transferred by the impugned order in absence of any decision of the Police Establishment Board. It is further contended by the senior counsel that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner goes contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra) as well as the Circular dated 14.02.2007. In the present case, there is violation of Clause 8 of the transfer policy which is contained in Annexure P/6. As per the said Clause, the transfers in respect of the employees/officials of the Police Department are required to be made in terms of the Circular dated 14.02.2007. The said Clause -8 of the transfer policy of GAD dated 29.04.2025 is in tune with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra). It is contended by the senior counsel that Clause-2 of the Circular dated 14.02.2007 which has been issued by the State pursuant to the directives of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra), has been violated in the present case. The petitioner came to Seoni vide an order dated 31.07.2023 and before completion of two years of tenure, the petitioner has been transferred vide the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 contained in Annexure P/4. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is to be superannuated on 30.09.2
