Birendra Chandra Ghosh v. State of West Bengal — 1984 DIGILAW 359 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Bankim Chandra Roy, J. 1. The petitioner has assailed in this writ petition the order of transfer made by the Respondent No.3 Special Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) transferring him from the post of Inspector Incharge of Malipanchghora Police Station in the District of Howrah to the post of Inspector, Intelligence Branch, West Bengal as malafide and arbitrary being made at the behest of the Superintendent of Police, Howrah Sri Sultan Singh, Respondent No.5, in order to get rid of him and the impugned order is void and inoperative being made for collateral and extraneous considerations. 2. The petitioner who was initially recruited and appointed as Sub-Inspector of police in 1960 was confirmed and he was subsequently promoted to the post of inspector of police in December 1970. In 1977 the petitioner was confirmed in the post of Inspector of Police and he was posted as Inspector, District Intelligence Branch, Nadia. In consideration of his meritorious service the petitioner was thereafter posted as Inspector, District Intelligence Branch, 24 Parganas on and from 29.11.1978. On his representation he was posted as Inspector of police, Mahisadal in the District of Midnapore and joined the said post on 5.4.1980. On 16.2.1983 in terms of order dated 3.1.1983 the petitioner joined as Inspector-In-charge Malipanchghora Police Station. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure "C" to the petition. The petitioner, it has been stated, has rendered efficient service in the police department and in appreciation of his scintillating service he was awarded a number of rewards and commendations as mentioned below:- (a) Money rewards 29 occasions. (b) Commendation 28 occasions. (c) Good service mark 17 occasions. (d) Good mark 2 occasions. 3. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner for his brilliant performance even at the time of his training was awarded Inspector General of Police Medal for his meritorious performance. The petitioner did not however get any punishment in his service career. During his work as Inspector-In-charge of Malipanchghora Police Station, he had successfully recovered large amount of arms and ammunitions and arrested several hardened criminals, antisocials of the area against whom criminal cases have been lodged. A list of those cases have been mentioned in the petition. The petitioner did not however get any punishment in his service career. During his work as Inspector-In-charge of Malipanchghora Police Station, he had successfully recovered large amount of arms and ammunitions and arrested several hardened criminals, antisocials of the area against whom criminal cases have been lodged. A list of those cases have been mentioned in the petition. It has been further stated that on 31.10.1983 the petitioner along with some police personnel rounded up some notorious criminal viz., late Bapi Chatterjee, Naushed, Paritosh and their associates and there was a free exchange of gun shots and burling of bombs by the criminals causing severe injuries to four police officers. The said three notorious criminals were gunded down and some of their associates were arrested. In this way the criminal activities of the goondas and criminals within the Malipanchghora police station were greatly reduced and restricted. The petitioner and other officers who participated in the successful raid against the notorious criminals on 31.10.1983 were congratulated by originator dated 31.10.1983 issued by the Respondent No.3, Special Inspector General of police, Head quarters, West Bengal and they were asked to keep up the tempo and pressure against the criminals and anti social elements. A copy of the message has been annexed as Annexure "D" to the petition. 4. On 12.11.1983 originator being police West Bengal Order No. 3085(8)/PCR/CA(ii) dated 11.11.1983 had been sent to Malipanchghora police station intimating the transfer of the petitioner from Malipanchghora police station to the post of Inspector, Intelligence Branch West Bengal and transferring Susanta Dutta Mazumder, Inspector Incharge, Belghoria police station to the post of Inspector Incharge, Malipanchghora police station. It was mentioned in the said order that the order of transfer was made in the interest of public service. A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure "F" to the petition. This order of transfer has been attacked in the instant writ application as illegal and bad being not made in the interest of public service. It was mentioned in the said order that the order of transfer was made in the interest of public service. A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure "F" to the petition. This order of transfer has been attacked in the instant writ application as illegal and bad being not made in the interest of public service. But it has been made malafide and for arbitrary purposes for getting rid of the petitioner who, in fact, incurred the displeasure of the Superintendent of police Howrah, Shri Sultan Singh, Respondent No.5, as the petitioner did not act according to his direction by allowing Hirak Banerjee Sub Inspector of police, Malipanchghora police station to Join his duties in compliance with the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 11.7.1983 by recording a general diary No. 846 dated 15.7.1983 (Annexure 1) though the Respondent No.6 called the petitioner to his chamber and asked him not to give any work to S.I. Hirak Banerjee. The order of transfer in question, it has been submitted, has been issued at the instance of Superintendent of police, respondent No.6 and this will be evident from the fact that the said order was issued as soon as the Respondent No.6 resumed his duty after the expiry of his leave on 10.11.1983 and the order of transfer was made on November 11.11.1983. It has been further submitted in this connection that in connection with an enquiry into the allegations made in the application for anticipatory bail in Malipanchghora P.S. Case No. 18 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code filed on behalf of the S.I. Hirak Banerjee and another police officer Manab Chakrabarty by the Commissioner of police, Presidency Range, who was appointed as Special Officer by this Hon'ble Court to hold the enquiry, the Respondent No.6 directed the petitioner to give statement as desired by the Superintendent of police, Howrah in order to render the allegations made in the said application for anticipatory bail unfounded and baseless. The petitioner, however, did not accede to the unjust directions given by the Superintendent of police, Respondent No.5 and he made a statement of the actual facts before the Enquiry Officer, that is, the Commissioner, Presidency Range. The petitioner, however, did not accede to the unjust directions given by the Superintendent of police, Respondent No.5 and he made a statement of the actual facts before the Enquiry Officer, that is, the Commissioner, Presidency Range. The Commissioner submitted a report and as far as the petitioner could ascertain that the allegations of the personal grudge of Sultan Singh, Superintendent of Police, Howrah was mostly substantiated and the case was ultimately dropped as a final report as directed by this court was submitted by the Investigating Officer. It has been further submitted that while the petitioner was on medical leave for seven days on and form 12.11.1983 the Respondent No.6 in order to have implementation of the order of transfer immediately came to the Malipanchghora police station and stayed there for a while with the Inspector-Incharge of Belghoria police station Shri S. Dutta Mazumdar who came to take charge of Malipanchghora police station, but as the petitioner was on leave the charge could not be taken over and Respondent No.6 along with the Inspector-In-Charge Belghoria police station left the police station. Again on the same day at about 20-50 hours the Deputy Superintendent of police, Town (North) Howrah on the basis of an order received from Shri Sultan Singh, Superintendent of police came to the Malipanchghora police station and assumed charge of the Malipanchghora police Station in the absence of petitioner without assuming charge of the Malkhana, the pending cases, records, other Government records and documents, arms and ammunitions, cash etc., lying in the custody of the petitioner. The deputy Superintendent of police Town (North) Howrah lodged a general diary being No. 739 dated 12.11.1983 to this effect. It has been submitted that the Superintendent of police, Howrah, respondent No.5 acted with undue haste for implementing the order of transfer which was caused to be issued at his macination. On bearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State the hearing of the application was adjourned till the next day at 3 P.M. There was an interim order to this extent that the impugned order mentioned in Annexure "F" would be kept in abeyance till that time. This interim order was extended by order dated 16.11.1983 till the hearing of the application which was adjourned to a later date. This interim order was extended by order dated 16.11.1983 till the hearing of the application which was adjourned to a later date. Thereafter on 21.11.1983 by consent of the learned advocates for both the parties a further interim order was made to this extent that the Deputy Superintendent of police of any area being deputed and appointed by the Director General of police or Inspector General of police or any Officer of the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of police or above will take charge of the Malipanchghora till the application is heard and disposed of by this Hon'ble Court. It was also made clear that either of the two officers including the petitioner and the person who was appointed as Officer-In-charge of the said police station by the Special Inspector General of police, West Bengal will not work in the aforesaid police station in the meantime. It was agreed by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State respondents that the State would arrange for payment of emoluments of the petitioner in the meantime and would grant special leave to him without any deduction from his emoluments and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending application. The petitioner would also be permitted to stay and reside in the quarter where he has been staying and residing. 5. An affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn by Sri Sultan Singh, Superintendent of police, Howrah, the Respondent No.5. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit it has been denied that the petitioner has grip and control over the troubled situation in Malipanchghora police station as has been stated in paragraph 18 of the petition. The deponent has said that there has been serious public resentment owing to deteriorating crime and law and order situation in the area. It has been further averred in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit that to meet this situation several administrative measures like deployment of substantial quantity of armed police including 2 platoons of Eastern Frontier Rifles, setting up of armed police pickets and mobile patrol etc. were taken which brought about an improvement in law and order situation. The deponent bas also averred that complaints had been made by responsible members of the public about utter inaction on the part of some subordinate officers and their connivance with the criminal and anti-social elements. were taken which brought about an improvement in law and order situation. The deponent bas also averred that complaints had been made by responsible members of the public about utter inaction on the part of some subordinate officers and their connivance with the criminal and anti-social elements. In view of such lack of public confidence it was considered inescapably necessary to take up some administrative measures to tone up the public administration of Howrah district and in the Right of such exigencies of public interest the order of transfer-in-question was issued on 11.11.1983 by the competent authority, viz. the Special Inspector General of police, West Bengal. This order was duly communicated on the same day from the West Bengal police Head quarter to the concerned Senior Officers like the Deputy Inspector General of police, Presidency Range, the superintendent of police, Howrah etc. for immediate Implementation of the same. The superintendent of police on receipt of the order issued instruction on 12.11.1983 to give immediate effect to the said order. It has been said that the petitioner on coming to know of the order of transfer reported sick and left for his quarter leaving the charge of the police station with one Sub-Inspector (Vide. Malipanchghora P.S.G.D. Entry No. 713 date 12.11.1983 at 11.25 hours). In consideration of the prevailing tensi0n in the area and low level of morale in the force, the deponent would not allow the police station to remain without an officer-in-charge and so he issued the order dated 12.11.1983 asking his Deputy Superintendent of police, town (North) Howrah to assume charge of the police station immediately and to inform his superior officer accordingly. Such assumption of charge by a police officer is in accordance with section 36 of the code of Criminal procedure. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit the deponent denied that he ever tried to influence the petitioner for deposing against Sub-Inspector Hirak Banerjee of Malipanchghora police station in the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner Presidency Division, as alleged in paragraph 22 of the petition. As a matter of fact the Superintendent of police was totally unaware of the fact and contents of the said depositions. Other portions of the affidavit being not relevant for division of this petition are not mentioned herein. 6. An affidavit-in-reply sworn on 9.1.1984 has been filed. As a matter of fact the Superintendent of police was totally unaware of the fact and contents of the said depositions. Other portions of the affidavit being not relevant for division of this petition are not mentioned herein. 6. An affidavit-in-reply sworn on 9.1.1984 has been filed. The deponent has said in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that the statements in paragraphs 2 to 17 of the petition would be proved by a reference to the original records, some of which had been kept in police Directorate, West Bengal, Writers Buildings, Calcutta as well as from his service book, Master Roll and the concerned file of the petitioner now in the custody of the Superintendent of police, Howrah. The deponent denied specifically the statement that the petitioner had no grip or control over the troubled situation within Malipanchghora police station as wrongly made in paragraph 18 of the affidavit-in-opposition. It has been averred that after the petitioner assumed charge of Malipanchghora police station, the activities of local ruffians hardened criminals and rowdy elements had been curbed down. This will be evident from the comparative crime figures of 1981, 1982 and 1983 upto October 1983 as submitted to the Superintendent of police, Howrah under Memo No. 4212 dated 12.11.1983. On a scrutiny of the same it would reveal that there was no case of dacoity during his short period of working as Inspector-Incharge of the said police station. The petitioner stated that of the six cases of robbery reported till October 1983, one case ended in charge sheet against one person and of the five cases pending investigation in three cases the looted properties were recovered and the gang members were apprehended and forwarded to Court. The details of the action taken in those cases were stated therein. It has been stated also that the petitioner with the help of police officers liquidated the notorious gang of decoits of Bapi Chatterjee who along with his gang members Naused and Paritosh were gunned down in a round up operation and his associates were also arrested. For these acts appreciation both from members of the public as well as from high police Officers such as Special Inspector General of police were received by petitioner and the officers who participated in the operation. For these acts appreciation both from members of the public as well as from high police Officers such as Special Inspector General of police were received by petitioner and the officers who participated in the operation. Two posts of Sub-Inspectors of police remained vacant for sometime and inspite of the deponents' several entreaties to the Superintendent of Police, Howrah personally the said vacancies have not been filed up. The deponent further stated that after the arrest of principal accused persons Mahesh Singh and Sk. Guria in connection with Malipanchghora P.S. Case No. 18(5) 83 under section 302/34 I.P.C. and 9(A) of Explosives Act by Sub-Inspector Hirak Banerjee the wife of the accused Mahesh Singh, Anima Singh and the mother of accused Sk. Guria, Smt. Jarina Khatoon made allegations of criminal assaults at the police station by Sri Hirak Banerjee, S.I. Malipanchghora P.S. This was entertained by the Superintendent of police, Howrah who suspended Hirak Banerjee. This order of suspension made by the superintendent of police of the Sub-Inspector Hirak Banerjee shattered the morals of the Sub-Inspectors of police not only of the said police station but also of the sub-inspectors all over the District. The allegation that the law and order position deteriorated in certain puts of Howrah as made in the affidavit-in-opposition was denied. 7. Mr. Bholanath Sen, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the order of transfer is illegal and inoperative as it has been made in breach of regulation Nos. 835 and 836 of the police regulations, Bengal, 1943 which enjoin that the number of transfers should be reduced to a minimum and frequent transfer of Inspector and other police officers should not be made. It has been submitted that the petitioner was posted as Inspector-in-charge of Malipanchghora police station only in February 1983 and the impugned order of transfer has been made on 11.11.1983. The said order being in breach of the aforesaid police Regulations are illegal and bad. It has been further submitted that transfer can be made even within a short period of the posting an Inspector in a particular post it only such transfer is required due to the exigencies of sickness, leave, promotion retirement, serious misconduct and other unpreventable causes. The said order being in breach of the aforesaid police Regulations are illegal and bad. It has been further submitted that transfer can be made even within a short period of the posting an Inspector in a particular post it only such transfer is required due to the exigencies of sickness, leave, promotion retirement, serious misconduct and other unpreventable causes. The order of transfer in question merely recites that the transfer has been made in the interest of public service and does not assign any reason whatsoever which necessitated such transfer within a short period of the petitioner's taking charge as Inspector of Malipanchghora police station in February 1982. The averments made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by Superintendent of police Howrah, the Respondent Nos. 5 also does not disclose any plausible reason for such untimely had early transfer nor does it mention the specific public interest necessitating such early transfer of the petitioner. It has, therefore, been submitted that the transfer order is wholly illegal and unwarranted. It has been next submitted that the order of transfer having been made malafide and for extraneous considerations is void and it is liable to be canceled and quashed. It has also been submitted that the order of transfer has been made in utter violation of Regulation 877 which enjoins that an order of transfer shall not be passed as punishment. In the instant case it has been submitted that the order of transfer has been made as a penal measure at the instance of the respondent No.6 who was ill disposed towards the petitioner. It has been next submitted that the petitioner having been successful in restricting to a great extent that criminal activities of the goondas and hardened criminals in the area by successfully arresting them and starting criminal cases the impugned order of transfer has not been made in public interest at all as has been mentioned in the order itself. It has been next submitted that the petitioner having been successful in restricting to a great extent that criminal activities of the goondas and hardened criminals in the area by successfully arresting them and starting criminal cases the impugned order of transfer has not been made in public interest at all as has been mentioned in the order itself. It has been further submitted that the order of transfer has been made at the macination of Superintendent of police Shri Sultan Singh, Respondent No.5, who was ill disposed towards the petitioner because of his not acting according to the caprice and whims and arbitrary dictates of the Superintendent of Police by not deposing before the Enquiry Officer in the Malipanchghora P.S. Case No. 18 dated 16.6.1983 which was launched at the behest of the Superintendent of police. The order of transfer is, therefore, patently malafide and it has not been made in public interest. It has been further submitted in this connection that the order of transfer was made just on the 11th day after the letter of congratulation was issued by the Respondent No.3 for the laudable work done by the petitioner in detecting the criminals. There was nothing to show that during this period of 11 days law and order situation in the said Malipanchghora police station deteriorated or dwindled. It has, therefore, been submitted that the impugned order of transfer is liable to be quashed, canceled and set aside. 8. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal has submitted that the order of transfer was made in the interest of public service. The order was not vitiated by malafide nor it was not extraneous consideration but it was made for the exigency of the public interest by the Respondent No.3, Special Inspector General of police, Headquarters. It has been further submitted that the superintendent of police Shri Sultan Singh, the Respondent No.6 had nothing to do with the order of transfer of the petitioner as the order was made by the Respondent No.3 at a time when Respondent No.6 just joined his office after expiry of his leave. It has therefore been submitted that the order cannot be questioned as bad or illegal. It has therefore been submitted that the order cannot be questioned as bad or illegal. It has been further submitted that the allegations of malafide have not been at all proved by the petitioner and as such the impugned order of transfer cannot be held to be bad on the ground of malafide. A decision had been cited at the bar by the learned Advocate General in this matter. 9. The petitioner who is the Inspector Incharge of Malipanchghora police station took charge of office of Inspector Incharge of this police station on 16.2.1983 in terms of order 11/PER/GAII/PER/GAII/525-82 dated 3.1.1983 and since then the petitioner had worked as Inspector Incharge of the said police station till 11.11.1983. It also appears that during the period of his working in the said police station as Inspector-in-charge the petitioner was able to make recovery of large amount of arms, and ammunitions as has been stated in paragraph 13 of the writ application. It also appears from the averments made in paragraph 14 of the petition that the petitioner successfully confronted a group of notorious criminal viz. Late Bapi Chatterjee, Naused and Paritosh along with their associates who assembled within the graveyard of Dharmatola Road for the purpose of committing decoity. There was an exchange of gun shot and hurling of bombs by the criminals as a result four police officers were severely injured and the three criminals Bapi Chatterjee, Naused and Paritosh were killed and some of their associates were arrested. It also appears from averments made in the petition that several other criminals were also arrested by the petitioner with the assistance of other police officers of the police station and for these acts letter of congratulation was sent by the Special Inspector General of police, Headquarters, West Bengal, the Respondent No.3, to the petitioner and/or other officers who participated in the raid against the notorious criminals. This letter has been annexed as Annexure "D" to the writ application. This letter is dated 1.11.1983. In the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by Sri Sultan Singh, the Superintendent of police Howrah the Respondent No.5, the statements in paragraphs 2 to 17 have not at all been denied or controverted. This letter has been annexed as Annexure "D" to the writ application. This letter is dated 1.11.1983. In the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by Sri Sultan Singh, the Superintendent of police Howrah the Respondent No.5, the statements in paragraphs 2 to 17 have not at all been denied or controverted. It also appears from the averments made in paragraph 12 of the writ application that the petitioner get several rewards, commendations good service marks and good marks and he did not ever receive any punishment during his service career. The order of transfer has been made on 11.11.1983 by the Respondent No.3 and this has been sent to the Malipanchghora police station on 12.11.1983 whereby the petitioner was sought to be transferred and posted as Inspector, Intelligence Branch, West Bengal and one Susanta Dutta Mazumdar, Inspector of Belghoria police station was sought to be posted as Inspector of Malipanchghora police station. In the order of transfer it was stated that the order was made in the interest of the public service. It has been stated on oath by the petitioner that the Superintendent of police Sri Sultan Singh was ill disposed towards the petitioner as he did not act according to the suggestions given by him to the petitioner by allowing the Sub-Inspector of police Hirak Banerjee to work as such in view of the Rule and interim order issued by this Hon'ble Court restraining the authorities concerned from giving effect to the order of suspension made by the Superintendent of police against him. It has also been stated that the petitioner also did not agree to the suggestion given by the Superintendent of Police by not deposing before the enquiry officer in Malipanchghora P.S. Case No. 18 dated 18.6.1983 in order to render the allegations made in the bail application made on behalf of the Sub-Inspector of police, Hirak Banerjee baseless but he stated the real facts before the enquiry officer. It has been submitted further that for all these reasons the Superintendent of police was very much displeased with the petitioner and be was trying to have him removed from the said Malipanchghora police station. It has also been stated that the impugned order of transfer was made at the instance of the Superintendent of Police Sri Sultan Singh immediately after he joined his office on expiry of his leave on 11.11.1983. It has also been stated that the impugned order of transfer was made at the instance of the Superintendent of Police Sri Sultan Singh immediately after he joined his office on expiry of his leave on 11.11.1983. It has further been stated that in order to get the order of transfer implemented immediately he himself went along with the Inspector-in-charge, Belghoria police station Susanta Dutta Mazumder to the Malipanchghora police station to see taking over of the charge of the said police station by Sri Dutta Mazumdar. But as the petitioner was on medical leave the charge could not be taken over. The Respondent No.6 along with the Respondent No.8 came back and at 19-45 hours on the same day another order was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of police (T/N), Howrah to take charge of the Inspector of Malipanchghora police station. On receiving the said order the Deputy Inspector of police, Town (North), Howrah came to the Malipanchghora police station on 12.11.1983 at 20-15 hours and purportedly assumed charge of Inspector of the said police station in the absence of the petitioner and without assuming the charge of the Malkhana, the pending cases and records and other Government records, arms and ammunitions, each etc. lying under the custody of the petitioner. It has therefore been submitted that the order of transfer was made at the machination of the Superintendent of police, Howrah and it was made malafide and for extraneous purpose and as such it was void and bad. In paragraphs 5 & 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition it was sworn by the Respondent No.6 that in view of the deteriorating crime and law and order situation in the area (Malipanchghora police station) there was serious public resentment and this necessitated several urgent administrative measures like deployment of substantial quantity of armed Police including two platoons of the Eastern Frontier Rifles. It has been further stated that in view of the lack of public confidence it was considered inescapably necessary to take some administrative measures to tone up the public administration of the Howrah District. It has been further stated that in view of the lack of public confidence it was considered inescapably necessary to take some administrative measures to tone up the public administration of the Howrah District. In the light of such exigency of public interest the order of transfer was issued on 11.11.1983 by the competent authority undoubtedly, that is, the Special Inspector General of police, West Bengal, it has been further stated that in consideration of the prevailing tension in the area and low, level of morale of force the Superintendent of police Howrah would not have allowed the police station to remain without an officer-in-charge. Accordingly he issued an order on 12.11.1983 asking the Deputy Superintendent of police Town to take charge as Officer-in-charge of Malipanchghora police station immediately and inform his superior officer accordingly. It has been further stated that under Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure such assumption of charge by a senior police officer is not irregular nor a rate step in any manner whatsoever. The allegation of malafides in making the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.6, Sri Sultan Singh, the Superintendent of police, that has been stated clearly in paragraph 22 of the writ petition has not been duly and properly controverted or denied by the deponent, the Respondent No.6. In paragraph 7 of his affidavit-in-opposition it was simply stated that the Respondent No.6 was totally unaware about the facts and contents of the deposition of the petitioner given in the said enquiry held in cameras and he was also unaware of the report of the Inquiry officer which was kept in this Court in a sealed cover. The petitioner undoubtedly received commendations and congratulations for the raid conducted by him with the other police officer against the notorious criminals within Malipanchghora police station and in successfully arresting them. This letter was issued undoubtedly by the Respondent No.3, Special Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, on 1.11.1983. The respondent No.3 purported to have issued the impugned order of transfer on 11.11.1983 which was communicated to the Superintendent of police, Howrah on 12.11.1983. The Superintendent of police was also on leave for some days and he joined his office on 11.11.1983. This letter was issued undoubtedly by the Respondent No.3, Special Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, on 1.11.1983. The respondent No.3 purported to have issued the impugned order of transfer on 11.11.1983 which was communicated to the Superintendent of police, Howrah on 12.11.1983. The Superintendent of police was also on leave for some days and he joined his office on 11.11.1983. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that if the law and order situation had very much deteriorated and urgent steps were necessary to meet the situation, then how the Superintendent of police, Respondent No.5 can take leave from his office for some days. It has, therefore, been urged that this statement of the Superintendent of police is not at all a correct statement of the State of affairs regarding the law and order situation of Malipanchghora police station at that time. Moreover it also appears that nothing has been specifically stated in the affidavit-in-opposition by the deponent, that is, the Superintendent of police himself, about any incidents nor any documents were produced before this court to show that the crime and law and order situation had deteriorated miserably in the Malipanchghora police station during the period from 2.11.1983 to 11.11.1983 necessitating immediate taking of urgent administrative measures. 10. It has been alleged in the Affidavit-in-opposition that some subordinate officers were utterly inactive and they connived with the criminals and anti socials also. This is a very serious allegation made by a responsible officer like the Superintendent of police without mentioning specifically the name of the particular officer whose utter inaction and whose connivance with the criminal and anti social elements helped the crimes position and law and order situation to deteriorate. This short of wild allegation made by a responsible officer like the Superintendent of police is very unfortunate as they affect undoubtedly the integrity and morale of the police officers. The deponent has also stated that there was lack of public confidence in these officers which necessitated taking of administrative measures to tone up the public Administration of Howrah District. This short of wild allegation made by a responsible officer like the Superintendent of police is very unfortunate as they affect undoubtedly the integrity and morale of the police officers. The deponent has also stated that there was lack of public confidence in these officers which necessitated taking of administrative measures to tone up the public Administration of Howrah District. All these statements are as vague as possible and does not at all state clearly how in course of ten days after issuance of the congratulatory letter commanding the service of the Inspector-In-charge and other officers of Malipanchghora police station there was connivance on the part of the police officers with the criminals and anti social elements and how they became all on a sudden during this period utterly inactive. These averments in paragraphs 6 clearly go to show that the superintendent of police Sri Sultan Singh, respondent No.6, was very much biased and prejudiced against the petitioner, Inspector In-charge, Malipanchghora police station and the order of transfer has been made at the behest of the superintendent of police, Howrah. This will be clear from the averment in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, particularly from his statement that in the light of such exigencies of public interest the order of transfer was issued on 11.11.1983 by the Competent Authority. It has also to be noted that the Respondent No.6, Sri Sultan Singh not only went to the police station on 12.11.1983 with the Inspector-in-charge Belghoria police station, respondent No.8, to see the making over of charge of the Malipanchghora police station by the petitioner, but when the charge could not be taken over by the new incumbent, the Respondent No.9 as the petitioner was absent on leave from the police station the Superintendent of police himself issued an order on that very day at about 19-45 hours asking the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Town (North), Howrah to take charge of the office of the Inspector, Malipanchghora police station and accordingly the Deputy Superintendent of Police Town/North Howrah went to the Malipanchghora Police station on that day at 20-15 hours and assumed charge of the Inspector of the said police station without assuming charge of Malkhana, pending cases etc. This clearly goes to show that the Superintendent of Police Shri Sultan Singh, the respondent No.6, was very much anxious and bent upon to have the order of transfer effected and the charge of the Inspector Malipanchghora police station taken immediately and in his anxiety the said order was made on 12.11.1983 asking the Deputy Superintendent of Police Town/North Howrah to take charge of the said Police station. This is a glaring instance of malafide and it clearly goes to show that it was at the machination of Sri Sultan Singh, the Superintendent of Police Howrah the order of transfer was made just on the 11th day of by the self same officer viz., respondent No.3 who issued the letter congratulating the laudable work done by the Inspector Malipanchghora Police station that is, the petitioner in successfully making raids against criminals and anti socials. It has also been specifically alleged in the writ petition itself as has been stated hereinbefore that the Superintendent of Police was very much prejudiced and biased and also ill disposed against the petitioner because of his not detoing to the arbitrary and capricious and whimsical directions in the matter of deposing against Hirak Banerjee implicating him in the criminal case being Malipanchghora P.S. Case No. 18 lodged in 18.6.1983 and also in allotting work to Hirak Banerjee by allowing him to join his duty on the basis of the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court staying operation of the order of suspension made by Sri Sultan Singh, the superintendent of police, the respondent No.6. Considering these circumstances I am constrained to hold that the impugned order of transfer is vitiated by malafides and it has been made not in the interest of public service but for extraneous considerations viz., to remove the petitioner from the post of Inspector, Malipanchghora police station, as the Superintendent of Police is displeased with him. As has been observed in Pushpa Karana vs. Chairman Coir Board Kerala, 1979 (1) SLR 309 . That the right to transfer an employee is a powerful weapons in the hands of the employer some times it is more dangerous that other punishment. It may at .time bear the mask of innocuousness. What is ostensible in a transfer order may not be the real object. That the right to transfer an employee is a powerful weapons in the hands of the employer some times it is more dangerous that other punishment. It may at .time bear the mask of innocuousness. What is ostensible in a transfer order may not be the real object. Behind the mask of innocence may hide sweet revenge, a desire to get rid of an innocent employee, or to keep at bay an activist or a stormy petral. When the court is altered the court has necessarily to tear the veil of deceptive innocuousness and see what exactly motivated the transfer. This court acts and should not where it is satisfied that the real object of transfer is not apparent, examine what exactly was behind the transfer. In case of S. Protap Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1964) 4 SCR 1433, it had been observed that an authority exercising power if takes Into account something which it could not properly take into account in deciding whether or not to exercise the power the exercise of power would be bad. Similar observation his been made in the case reported in E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 553, where it has been said that there the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the ante chamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to malafide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Malafide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice in fact the later comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by articles 14 and 16. The learned Advocate General referred to another passage from the same case where it has been observed that the burden of establishing malafide is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Referring to this Mr. Advocate General tried to contend that the petitioner failed to prove the allegations of malafides in making the impugned order of transfer by the Superintendent of Police. This contention of the Advocate General is not tenable in view of my holding hereinbefore that the petitioner has been able to prove that the order has been made malafide and for extraneous consideration. This contention of the Advocate General is not tenable in view of my holding hereinbefore that the petitioner has been able to prove that the order has been made malafide and for extraneous consideration. Moreover the order of transfer was made by the respondent No.3, the Special Inspector General of Police, Headquarters and be has not come forward to hazard an affidavit stating specifically for what interest of Public service or for meeting which exigencies of public service the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner outside the District of Howrah had been even though the petitioner took charge of the Malipanchghora Police Station only on 16.2.1983. The statement made on oath by the Superintendent of Police Howrah, Sri Sultan Singh, that the order of transfer was made due to exigency of public interest is not sustainable as the respondent No.5 was not competent to know what weighed with the mind of the respondent No.3 in making the said order specially became of the issuance of the letter of congratulations for the good service rendered by the petitioner in liquidating the gang of notorious criminals led by Bapi Chatterjee, Nausad and Paritosh and in arresting the members of the gang just 10 days before the issuance of the impugned order of transfer by the respondent No.3. It also appears from the specific averments made in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the writ petition as well as from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit in reply sworn by the petitioner that it was the petitioner who was instrumental in arresting a large number of criminals, anti socials and rowdies and in lodging several criminal cases against those criminals and as a result of such actions taken by the petitioner the crime situation bas been much restricted and the taw and order situation was more improved. This clearly goes to show that the petitioner has been able to have a strong grip and control over the law and order situation within the Malipanchghora police station and it was due to his own tireless and ceaseless efforts in binding up criminals that the activities of the criminals in this industrial belt has been much restricted. This clearly goes to show that the petitioner has been able to have a strong grip and control over the law and order situation within the Malipanchghora police station and it was due to his own tireless and ceaseless efforts in binding up criminals that the activities of the criminals in this industrial belt has been much restricted. There is no denial to these specific statements made on oath by the petitioner in the said paragraphs of the petitioner as well as in the affidavit in reply nor any relevant records have been produced before this court to prove that the law and order situation has dwindled during this period commencing from 1.11.1983 to 11.11.1983 to such an extent which necessitated immediate gearing up of administrative measures ultimately resulting in the transfer of the petitioner from the Malipanchghora Police station. On the other hand the serious allegations that has been made against the superintendent of police, Sri Sultan Singh that he was very much ill disposed towards the petitioner owing to the petitioner not acting to his suggestions in the matter of allotting work to the Sub-Inspector of the Police of the said police station Sri Hirak Banerjee against whom an order of suspension was issued by the said police superintendent himself which had ultimately been stayed by this Hon'ble Court. It is also evendent from the averments made in the petition that Sri Sultan Singh, the superintendent of police, was instrumental in implicating the said sub-inspector of police, Hirak Banerjee in Malipanchghora P.S. Case No. 18 dated 16.6.1983 and in asking the petitioner by calling him to his chamber on 18.8.1983 to give statements as desired by the Superintendent of Police, Howrah before the Commissioner of Police, Presidency Range, Sri A.K. Banerjee, in order to falsify the allegations made in the application for anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble Court. All these statements made on oath have not at all been controverted. On the other hand it is clear from the Judgment dated 12.12.1983 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1521 of 1983 by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court presided over by Mr. Justice P.C. Borooah that the action of the Superintendent of Police in implicating the two police officers in the said criminal case affect the morale of the police force. Case No. 1521 of 1983 by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court presided over by Mr. Justice P.C. Borooah that the action of the Superintendent of Police in implicating the two police officers in the said criminal case affect the morale of the police force. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court presided over by Mr. Justice Borooah. It appears that the proceedings which have been initiated against Sub-Inspector Shri Hirak Banerjee and the other police officer viz., Sri Manab Chakrabarty on the charges under section 302/34 I.P.C. are unjustified and without any basis whatsoever. The subsequent report which are of the following effect obtained from the doctor who held the post mortem is also baseless and unbelievable. We therefore hope that better scene till prevail and investigating officer will submit an official report in the case against the two petitioners. There are matters in the report which, in our view, affect the morale of the police force. We, therefore, order that the report of the Commissioner, Presidency Division be kept in a sealed cover in the custody of the Registrar, Appellate Side permanently and should not be handed over to anybody under any circumstances, nor should the contents thereof be ever made published. 11. In these circumstances this contention advanced on behalf or the petitioner succeeds. The order being made malafide and for extraneous considerations are liable to be quashed and set aside. The other contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the impugned order of transfer is in utter contraventions of the provisions of the Police regulations Bengal No. 835(b) wherein it has been proved that the number of transfers should be reduced to a minimum. It is only in the case of exigencies of sickness, leave, promotion, retirement, serious misconduct and other unpreventable causes a certain num her of changes is unavoidable. It has also been contended that the impugned order of transfer also violated the provisions of regulations 836 which provide that an Inspector of Police cannot remain for more than 10 years in one District without the approval of the Inspector General or without the approval of Deputy Inspector General for more than 5 years in a sub division. It has also been contended that the impugned order of transfer also violated the provisions of regulations 836 which provide that an Inspector of Police cannot remain for more than 10 years in one District without the approval of the Inspector General or without the approval of Deputy Inspector General for more than 5 years in a sub division. It has also been submitted that midterm transfer as well as frequent transfers of police personnel are required to be avoided in view of the circular issued by the Inspector General of Police, West Bengal being Police Order No.2 of 1980 dated 22.2.1980. It has been submitted that the impugned order is also illegal and bad on this ground. There is much substance, in my opinion, in this contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner undoubtedly was posted as officer incharge of Malipanchghora police station on 16.2.1983 and the order of transfer was made on 11.11.1983, that is, within 9 months of his joining the said Police station. Furthermore this transfer has been made in the middle of the session. Such transfers are discourageby the aforesaid circular being Police Order No.2 of 1980 issued by the then Inspector General of Police West Bengal, S.C. Chowdhury of course it has been provided that transfer within such a short span and midterm transfer can only be allowed in case of exigency due to sickness, leave etc. and other unavoidable reasons to be recorded in writing which male it imperative to transfer. In this case no reason has been recorded as to the unavoidable administrative reasons or the sickness or leave which made it imperative on the authorities concerned to make the impugned order of transfer. It was merely stated in the order of transfer that the transfer has been made in the interest of public service. This is very vague and as I have said already the respondent No.3, the Special Inspector General of Police, who made the impugned order, has not come forward to state on oath, the imperative circumstances or exigencies which impelled him to make the impugned order of transfer. In these circumstances I am constrained to hold that the order of transfer has been made in utter breach of the aforesaid circular of the Government as well as of the Police Regulations 835(b) and 836(a) of the Police Regulations Bengal, 1943. In these circumstances I am constrained to hold that the order of transfer has been made in utter breach of the aforesaid circular of the Government as well as of the Police Regulations 835(b) and 836(a) of the Police Regulations Bengal, 1943. Furthermore in the matter of handing over charge there has been a total non-observance of the provisions of Regulation No.839 which requires that the charge of any office, station or post shall be made over and taken over by the relieved and relieving officer personally in each others presence at the headquarters of the former except when special permission has been given by the Inspector General or the provincial Government as the case may be, for the transfer of the charge to be effected otherwise. In this case no special permission has been given either by the Inspector General of Police or by the provincial government for the transfer of the charge of the Inspector, Malipanchghora police station and as such the taking over of the charge by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Town within North Howrah according to the order of the Superintendent of Police, Sri Sultan Singh in absence on leave of the petitioner, Inspector in charge of Malipanchghora police station, is also contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Regulation No.839. It was stated in the order of the Superintendent of Police which has been annexed as Annexure "G" to the writ petition that he has directed the Deputy Superintendent Sri S.D. Mallick to assume charge as officer in charge of two police stations that is Malipanchghora and Bali Police stations that is, Malipanchghora and Bali Police station in the immediate interest of law and order and public service and security. This charge was taken over by the Deputy Superintendent police about 9-25 P.M. on 12.11.1983 and immediately after taking over charge of the police station the Deputy Superintendent of Police left these two police stations. There is nothing to show from the averments made in the affidavit in opposition sworn by Superintendent of police that such a deteriorating situation arose necessitating the immediate taking over of the charge of the said police station by a superior police officer like the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the absence of the Inspector Incharge of Malipanchghora police station. Even then the further requirements of the aforesaid rule viz. Even then the further requirements of the aforesaid rule viz. the special permission of the Inspector General of Police was not also taken by the Superintendent of Police. This contention, therefore, is in my opinion, tenable and it goes to support the submission that the respondent No.5 was very eager to have the order of transfer enforced and thereby to get rid of the petitioner anyhow. Moreover regulation 838(a) was not observed in not allowing the requisite leave to the petitioner to move to the new post. In the facts and circumstances I am constrained to hold that the order of transfer is vitiated by arbitrariness and malafides. 12. In the premises aforesaid all the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner having succeeded this application is allowed. Let a writ of mandamus issue commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned order of transfer dated 11.11.1983 made by Special Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, respondent No.3 as communicated under originator No. 3085(8)/PER/GA(II) dated 11.11.1983. Let a writ of mandamus issue also commanding the respondents to cancel, withdraw or rescind the impugned order of transfer dated 11.11.1983 mentioned in Annexure "F" to the petition. Let a writ of certiorari issue calling upon the respondents to quash, cancel or set aside the impugned order of transfer dated 11.11.1983 made by the respondent No.3. There will be further no order as to costs. The prayer for stay is summarily rejected.