Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1434 (PAT)

Ram Niranjan Roy v. State Of Bihar

2002-12-18

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated 9 September, 2002 : Ram Niranjan Roy V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2. This court heard the petitioner- appellant appearing in person on 28 November, 2002, 5 December, 2002, and 10 December, 2002 when notice was issued to the State. The matter has come up at the admission stage today. 3. Today, the court has heard the petitioner-appellant in person. The court has also perused the record of the writ petition, the order which has been impugned and the grounds which have been taken in the letters patent appeal to challenge the order of 9 September, 2002 on the writ petition. 4. Before the court records anything else, it will be appropriate to record what the court had indicated to the petitioner- appellant on the previous dates up to the time when notice had been issued. The court indicated to the petitioner-appellant that whatever made him aggrieved and all the departmental proceedings which have been taken out, they all lead to the petitioner-appellant resisting an order of transfer. The fact that the petitioner-appellant resist an order of transfer ultimately made him face departmental proceedings. 5. The petitioner-appellant is a police officer. He is an officer in uniform. An element of regimentation does apply to the condition of his service. Regard being had to the circumstances of the cadre to which he belongs, the court, thus, indicated to the petitioner-appellant that if he will join on the transferred place wherever he may have been posted, the court will recommend to the State-respondents that they may drop the proceedings taken out against him for not obeying a transfer order. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant should take his order of transfer and join his post. The petitioner-appellant declined the proposition of the court. He is at liberty to do so. 6. Hereinafter, the petitioner appellant submitted on the merits of the matter on the letters patent appeal. His arguments were that (a) each and every ground in the letters patent appeal be considered; (b) the decision of the Supreme Court in re. The petitioner-appellant declined the proposition of the court. He is at liberty to do so. 6. Hereinafter, the petitioner appellant submitted on the merits of the matter on the letters patent appeal. His arguments were that (a) each and every ground in the letters patent appeal be considered; (b) the decision of the Supreme Court in re. Partap Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 , be considered; (c) allegations of malafide against the respondents and particularly the Director General of Police be taken into account; (d) his order of transfer is not in accordance with the principles and regulations and (e) for that he has filed a separate writ petition which is pending.This is CWJC No. 12225 of 1999. 7. The contention is that if the writ petition were to be examined clearly, the orders of transfer are against the regulation and they are mala fide. 8. The court now takes up the arguent made by the petitioner-appellant. The grounds of the letters patent appeal have been considered in totality. The decision citeted of the Supreme Court has also been considered. The petitioner-appellant has not made the persons against whom he makes allegations of malafide as party- respondents. The only person who has been made a party-respondent is the De partmental Inquiry Commissioner. In the circumstances, the court cannot encourage submissions on malafides when the persons against whom they are made will not have the opportunity to answer such allegations. In so far as the transfer order is concerned the petitioner-appellant is in police service and is amenable to transfer which is an incident of service. In so far as the pending writ petition is concerned, as the petitioner-appellant argues the point his contentions have been noticed. 9. The petitioner-appellant has been evading an order of transfer since 22nd January, 1998 and has now virtually put himself in the seat of a litigant to challenge the order of transfer. 10. This court is not inquiring into the matters as to why the petitioner-appellant should resist the order of transfer or why he may not be given a particular posting by the respondents. Truly, these are matters for the administration. 11. Fully relying upon the order passed on the writ petition and disagreeing with nothing, the court is not inclined to interfere on this letters patent appeal. 12. Dismissed.