I. M. QUDDUSI, J. ( 1 ) SINCE the petitions are knit together by reasons of common question of law being involved therein and also by reasons of facts being identical, these petitions were grouped together and heard accordingly for convenient disposal by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE necessary facts giving rise to Writ Petition No. 2474 of 2000 (S/s) are that by means of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner has the challenged the impugned order dated 28. 4. 2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, transferring the petitioner from the post of Station Officer, Police Station. Thakurganj, Lucknow to Police Station, Maha Nagar, lucknow, as Senior Sub-Inspector. ( 3 ) IT has been averred in the petition that the petitioner is a sincere and obedient police personnel. He has come to Lucknow on transfer from district Banda in the year 1997. He was transferred from D. C. R. B. to P. S. Thakurganj as Station Officer vide order dated 2. 11. 1999. Since, then the petitioner has been performing his duties sincerely and no complaint whatsoever has ever been made against him even though the Impugned order has been passed curtailing the powers and status of the petitioner. This petition was taken up on 22. 5. 2000 by this Court and following interim order was passed : "learned State counsel prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment reported in State of U. P. and others v. Jagdeo Singh, 1984 (Supp) SCC 413 in support of his submission that by means of the present transfer order, the petitioner would be deprived of, the special allowance of Rs. 70 per month, which is attached to his post. In this view of the matter, the operation of the impugned order dated 28. 4. 2000 contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed. In relation to the petitioner. It will however, be open to the opposite parties to transfer the petitioner in the same capacity in which he is working at the present place of posting, subject to further orders of this Court. Sd. Pradeep Kant. J. 22. 5. 2000" ( 4 ) WRIT Petition No. 5832 of 2000 (S/s) has been filed by petitioner-Mangali Prasad Pal challenging the impugned order dated 10. 10. Sd. Pradeep Kant. J. 22. 5. 2000" ( 4 ) WRIT Petition No. 5832 of 2000 (S/s) has been filed by petitioner-Mangali Prasad Pal challenging the impugned order dated 10. 10. 2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, lucknow, transferring the petitioner from the post of Station Officer, Police Station, Thakurganj, lucknow, to the Police Lines, Lucknow, which according to the petitioner amounts to his reversion. This petition was taken up on 15. 11. 2000 on which date, following order was passed ; "heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel Sri S. C. Yadav, orders reserved. Till the delivery of orders, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at his new place of posting. " ( 5 ) SIMILARLY. Writ Petition No. 538 of 2000 (S/s) has been filed by petitioner Nathu Ram Dohre challenging the impugned order dated 14. 1. 2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, lucknow and on 16. 2. 2000, this Court has passed the following interim order. "this writ petition is directed against the order of transfer which according to the petitioner is stigmatic and, therefore, it amounts to punishment. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was posted at Police Out Post Aiashna. Police Station Krishna nagar, Lucknow from 22. 12. 1997 to 26. 4. 1999 and during that period, he had arrested, on 20. 3. 1999. Yashpal Singh and Indrapal Singh, brother of deceased Mandeep Singh who unfortunately self-immolated himself. It has been further contended that the petitioner was rewarded cash amount Rs. 2,500 by order dated 17. 11. 1999 for arresting the above two persons and other accused persons. The petitioner has also brought on record certain newspaper reports to show that he has been transferred because of the unfortunate incident of self ommolation referred to herein-above. In judicial side, newspapers reports are seldomly relied. At this stage, no comments can be made by this Court as far as the newspaper reports are concerned. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer reduces his pay packet. In judicial side, newspapers reports are seldomly relied. At this stage, no comments can be made by this Court as far as the newspaper reports are concerned. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer reduces his pay packet. In support, he relies upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Jagdeo Singh, 1984 (Supp) SCC 413 and asserts that in the backdrop of the order of transfer, it is nothing else but punishment for the reasons referred to hereinabove. The said fact has not been denied by the learned standing counsel. Learned counsel submits that Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1991 will have over-riding effect upon Section 7 of the U. P. Police Act, 1861. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer does not amount to punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has replied that the Rules are subject to the provisions of the Act. Whenever there is a matter of public interest and some action is taken, the authorities must keep in mind that nobody should be made scape goat in the process to win public support. Apparently, if any action is taken in the process of such unfortunate Incident where there is violation of human rights, a greater caution is required. This is not the stage for this Court to make any observation which may affect the merit of the case. Two weeks time is allowed to the Standing Counsel for filing counter-affidavit : three days time thereafter for filing rejoinder-affidavit. List immediately thereafter. Till the next date of listing, the operation of the order of transfer of the petitioner dated 14. 1. 2000 shall remain slayed. However, it would be open for the authorities to act in accordance with law, sd. Jagdish Bhalla, J. 16. 2. 2000" ( 6 ) WRIT Petition No. 6197 of 2000 (S/s) has been filed by the petitioner-Nathu Ram Dohrey challenging the impugned order dated 10. 11. 2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, lucknow, transferring the petitioner from the post of Station Officer. Police Station, Banthra, lucknow, to special squad of the S. S. P. . Lucknow. 2. 2000" ( 6 ) WRIT Petition No. 6197 of 2000 (S/s) has been filed by the petitioner-Nathu Ram Dohrey challenging the impugned order dated 10. 11. 2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, lucknow, transferring the petitioner from the post of Station Officer. Police Station, Banthra, lucknow, to special squad of the S. S. P. . Lucknow. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel, perused the documents annexed thereto and have carefully gone through the counter-affidavits filed by the learned standing counsel. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have strenuously urged that the impugned orders of transfers of the petitioners from the post of Station Officer are punishment within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 7 of the Police Act and as such, the impugned orders have been passed without complying the provisions contained in the Police Act, Rules pertaining to disciplinary proceedings. Article 311 of the Constitution and in violation of principle of natural justice. He has submitted that post of Station Officer of a Police Station is an office of distinction and dislodging the petitioners from the said office is a punishment. Therefore, it cannot be passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. ( 9 ) "the definition of the officer-in-charge of a Police Station has been given in sub-section (o) of section 2. Cr. P. C. , which runs as under: "officer-in-charge of a Police Station" includes, when the officer-in-charge of the Police Station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next In rank to such officer and is above the rank of a constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present. " ( 10 ) "police Station" has been defined under sub-section (s) of Section 2, Cr. P. C. as under : "police Station" means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State government, to be a Police Station, and includes any local area specified by the Slate government in this behalf. " ( 11 ) IN this connection, the provisions of sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. as under : "police Station" means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State government, to be a Police Station, and includes any local area specified by the Slate government in this behalf. " ( 11 ) IN this connection, the provisions of sub-section (2) (i) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. are relevant to be considered which provides as under; "as soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forward to a magistrate empowered to lake cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government. . . . . . " ( 12 ) CHAPTER V Rules 43 to 50 of Police Regulations deal with the duties and functions of the officer-in-charge of a Station ; the relevant provisions are quoted as under : "rule 43.--"the officer-in-charge of a Police Station is a sub-inspector. Within the limits of his charge, he conducts the police administration and has authority-over all branches of the force. He is responsible for the efficiency of his subordinates, for the proper performance of their duties and for the correctness of all registers, records, returns and reports prepared by them. He is responsible for the safe custody of all Government moneys and valuable properly at the Police station and for the correct maintenance of his account books. He must instruct them in their work, keep them under control and maintain discipline. " Rule 48.--"during his presence at the station house, he shall personally open the post and receive all orders, communications and reports sent or made there, he shall sign the general diary, arrange for the duties of the day, and give any directions that may be acquired : he shall inspect the Malkhana daily. He shall check the account books, compare them with relevant entries in the general diary and verify the cash balance daily. Money transactions and entries made in his absence must be checked by him on his return and the result of the check must be noted in the cash-book. When he deputes a subordinate officer to make an investigation under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must see. before forwarding the report required by Section 173, that the investigation has been properly made. When he deputes a subordinate officer to make an investigation under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must see. before forwarding the report required by Section 173, that the investigation has been properly made. Rule 49.--"for the definition of the term " officer-in-charge"--see Section 4 (1) (p) (now Section 2 (o) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The local Government have empowered the senior literate constable present to hold charge of the Station within the meaning of that section, when no officer above the rank of constable is present at the station house, but he may not make investigations. . . . . " ( 13 ) CHAPTER XI of the Police Regulations dealing with investigation of the criminal cases, the powers and functions of the officer-in-charge of the station has been given under Rule 104 which reads as under : "rule 104.--When a report of a cognizable offence is received, the officer- in -charge of the station must decide whether an investigation is desirable. In exercising the discretion allowed by section 157 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he should consider whether the case is for the civil rather than for the criminal courts and whether action by the police is necessary in the interest of the administration or expedient for the preservation of law and order note.--In all cases of hurt, inflicted with a deadly weapon, the officer-in-charge of the station should consider whether the circumstances are such as lo justify the registration of a case under section 307 or 308 of the Indian Penal Code, Cases registered under either of these sections must be promptly investigated as a matter of course without waiting for the order of the superintendent of Police or the report of the medical officer. " ( 14 ) RULE 100 of the U. P. Police Regulations runs as under : "if an officer-in-charge of a station receives an oral report of a cognizable offence when he is away from the station house, and wishes to begin the investigation at once and cannot dispense with the attendance of the person who made the report, he should take the report down in writing and. after having it signed or marked by the person who made it, should sent it to the Police station to be treated as a written report. after having it signed or marked by the person who made it, should sent it to the Police station to be treated as a written report. " ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of W. P. No. 5406 of 1986, Adil Rashid khan D. State of U. P. , which is quoted herein below : "we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties. The petitioner asserts that since 1983, he has been holding charge as Station Officer Incharge of the Police Station or on the posts equivalent to it. This fact is not in dispute and the petitioner, therefore, challenges the impugned order contained in annexure-3 transferring him and at the same time directing that he would not be posted as station Officer Incharge of the Police Station or out post. In as far as the posting by way of transfer is concerned, the petitioner is not aggrieved. He is aggrieved only to the extent that he would not be posted as Station Officer Incharge of the Police Station or out post. This Court has already considered this matter in a writ petition D. I. G. Police v. Ram Aqbal Tewari, 1975 ALJ 223 and subsequent decisions of this Court and it has been held that the order directing a Station officer to be posted as Sub-Inspector amounts to reversion since he loses remunerations. So far as direction contained in Annexure-5 purporting to direct the petitioner not to be posted as station Officer Incharge of Police Station or out post stands quashed and we direct that the petitioner will be posted anywhere but as Station Officer Incharge unless he is given an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed and is finally disposed of. Sd. S. S. Ahmad, J. D. S. Bajpat, J. 8. 8. 1986" ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have further produced before this Court, copy of an interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 7659 of 2000 (S/s), Raja Ram Singh Rana v. Senior supdt. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed and is finally disposed of. Sd. S. S. Ahmad, J. D. S. Bajpat, J. 8. 8. 1986" ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have further produced before this Court, copy of an interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 7659 of 2000 (S/s), Raja Ram Singh Rana v. Senior supdt. of Police, Lucknow and others, which is quoted as under : "sri R. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner stales that leave has been sought from the Honble the Senior Judge for presenting this writ petition before this Bench. Admit. Issue notice. Notice on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Heard Sri R. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. A. H. Rizvi, learned additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. As prayed four weeks time is allowed to the learned standing counsel to file counter-affidavit after service of duplicates on learned counsel for the petitioner, who may if he so desires, file rejoinder-affidavit in next one week. List this writ petition after expiry of the above period before the appropriate Bench. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order dated 20. 12. 2000, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ petition, is suspended and shall remain in abeyance until further orders of this Court and the petitioner shall continue to function as Station Officer, P. S. Aliganj, Lucknow. Sd. A. N. Trivedi, J. 31. 12. 2000. " ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 3671 of 1998 (S/s), Virendra Kumar Tewari v. State of U. P. and others, relevant portion whereof is quoted below : ". . . . . The order of transfer on the face of it is against the provisions of Rule 17 of the U. P. Police act, 1861 and also against the U. P. Police Regulations. Admittedly, Incharge of the Police station, according to Police Act, is an office of distinction as it carries special emoluments over and above salary payable to such officer. According to Rule 17 of the Act if such an officer is posted to any other post, which does not carry such emoluments, it amounts to reversion. Admittedly, Incharge of the Police station, according to Police Act, is an office of distinction as it carries special emoluments over and above salary payable to such officer. According to Rule 17 of the Act if such an officer is posted to any other post, which does not carry such emoluments, it amounts to reversion. The petitioner by the Impugned order, Annexure-2 has been attached with the office of the Senior superintendent of Police, Lucknow and he ceases to be Incharge of the Police Station thereby and it amounts to his reversion in terms of Rule 17. While concluding, the following observations were made which are quoted below : "in the circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner could be transferred by the opposite parties on an equivalent post. As such, the impugned order, Annexure-2, so far as it directs the petitioner to be attached with the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and not be posted as Station House Officer of a Police Station stands quashed and it is directed that the petitioner be posted anywhere as Station House Officer of a Police Station unless he is given opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. The directions as contained In Annexure-1 directing the petitioner to be reverted even before enquiry or any final orders further stands quashed. This petition is disposed of finally. " sd. A. S. Gill, J. 28. 8. 1998" ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners have produced copy of Circular dated 21st August. 1998 no. V-531-98 bearing subject as Submission of Nominations in Connection with Selection for circle Inspectors List II. Relevant para 1 whereof is reproduced below : " (i): Sub-Inspectors C. P. who have completed ten years service on 1st April, 1998 as such and have successfully held charge of Police Station or an equivalent post (S. I. I/c D. C. R. S. /readers to S. P. I/c of District/s. S. I. L. I. U. /a. S. I. O. /c. P. O. of Intt. Deptt.) for at least three year should be considered eligible for nomination. All posts of Sub-Inspectors which carry special pay in the districts should also be considered equivalent to the post of station officer for nomination. Lady sub-Inspectors are not required to complete three years period as station officer or equivalent post vide P. H. Q. Circular No. V-531-87 dated 22. 4. 1988. All posts of Sub-Inspectors which carry special pay in the districts should also be considered equivalent to the post of station officer for nomination. Lady sub-Inspectors are not required to complete three years period as station officer or equivalent post vide P. H. Q. Circular No. V-531-87 dated 22. 4. 1988. Any S. I. C. P. who has completed 4 years as S. I. in G. R. P. without any punishment, will be considered to have worked as officer-in-charge of a Police Station for 2 years. If for any reason for which he is not at fault, he is transferred from G. R. P. before completing 4 years, then 50% of the number of years he has served in G. R. P. will be considered to be number of years he has worked as officer-in-charge of a Police Station. " ( 19 ) THE above eligibility criterion has been fixed for nomination of C. I. List II for promotion to the rank of Inspector. In the aforesaid Circular, eligibility is for ; for Sub-Inspector who has completed 10 years of service and has successfully held charge of a Police Station or equivalent post, i. e. , (S. I. I/c D. C. R. S. /readers to S. P. I/c of Districts/s. S. I. L. I. U. /a. S. I. O. /c. P. O. of Intt. Deptt.) for at least three years. ( 20 ) IN view of the above qualification, it is clear that the Sub-Inspector who holds the post of station Officer of a Police Station or equivalent post which carries special pay in the district for at least three years are eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector, hence depriving the persons who are holding the post of Station Officer of a Police Station or equivalent post will naturally amount to disqualifying incumbents and in that case, the incumbents would not be eligible for promotion to the rank of Inspector as they would not be able to get their approval/promotion for C. I. List-II. Therefore, removing a person from the post of Station officer of a Police Station or equivalent post which carries special pay will have penal consequences being stigmatlc in nature. Therefore, removing a person from the post of Station officer of a Police Station or equivalent post which carries special pay will have penal consequences being stigmatlc in nature. This position has been deprecated by Honble Supreme court in the case of State of U. P. and others v. Jagdeo Singh, 1084 (Supp) SCC 413, in which it has been held as under : ". . . . . Section 7 (d) provides to the extent material that the Inspector General or any other officer named therein may award to a member of a Police Force any one or more of the punishments mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) if he is found to have discharged his duties in a careless or negligent manner. Clause (d) of Section 7 speaks of the punishment of removal from any office of "special emolument". The respondent was drawing a special emolument as a Station House officer of which he was deprived by way of punishment. On this limited ground, we confirm the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad dated August 25. 1976. " ( 21 ) SIMILAR view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Adil Rashid khan v. State of U. P. and others. Writ Petition No. 5406 of 1986 (supra ). ( 22 ) IT is important to notice that in the case of petitioner-Mangali Prasad Pal who was performing his duties as Station Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, Thakurganj, district Lucknow, the deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagar (West), Lucknow has submitted an enquiry report to the senior Superintendent of Police. Lucknow on 10. 10. 2000 pursuant to which the S. S. P. , Lucknow ordered S. I. Javed Ahmed, Incharge Out Post, Ring Road to be placed under suspension and the petitioner-Mangali Prasad Pal to be sent to Police Lines, Lucknow. ( 23 ) LIKEWISE, in the case of petitioner-Nathu Ram Dohrey, it has been stated that during his posting at the Police Out Post Ashiana, Lucknow, some incident of self-immolation took place due to which, he was transferred which causes stigma on the career of the petitioner aforesaid. ( 24 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are liable to be allowed. ( 25 ) IN the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 28. 4. 2000 and 10. 10. ( 24 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are liable to be allowed. ( 25 ) IN the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 28. 4. 2000 and 10. 10. 2000 in the case of petitioner-Mangali Prasad and the orders dated 14. 1. 2000 and 10. 11. 2000 in the case of petitioner-Nathu Ram Dohrey passed by the S. S. P. , Lucknow, in so far as they relate to the petitioners are hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioners will be posted anywhere but as Station Officer of a Police Station unless they are given reasonable opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.