Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 288 (HP)

MOHINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-09-18

K.C.SOOD, V.K.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral): The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1431 of 2003, whereby the petitioners O.A. against the impugned order dated 4th June, 2003 was dismissed, the learned Tribunal. 2. The petitioner, alongwith others including respondent No.4 Swaran Singh, was transferred on 9th may, 2003. The petitioner was transferred from 2nd battalion to Kangra District, and among others Swaran Singh was transferred from Kangra District to 2nd Battalion. Consequent upon the aforesaid transfer order dated 9th May, 2003, internal adjustment was ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Kangra on 31st May, 2003. 3. On 4th June, 2003 the impugned order was passed whereby the transfer order dated 9th May, 2003 was cancelled with immediate effect. This resulted in the petitioner as well as Swaran Singh being relegated to their original positions as were operating before 9th May, 2003. 4. Separate replies were filed before the Tribunal by respondents 1 to 3, as well as by respondent No. 4. Whereas respondents No.1 to 3 in their bland reply pleaded before the Tribunal that the impugned order dated 4th June, 2003 was passed in "public interest", respondent No. 4 in his separate reply candidly pleaded that the impugned order was passed at his instance, on medical grounds. 5. It is too well known that this Court generally does not interfere in transfer orders, except for the reasons of malafides or violation of Rules and Regulations (generally speaking), but in this particular case what we find is that the reply filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal did not inform the Tribunal about the reasons as to why the transfer order passed on 9th May, 2003 had to be undone in less than a month from the date it was passed. It becomes doubly intriguing when we see that respondent No. 4 in his separate reply very candidly pleaded that the impugned order was passed at his behest at his instance and on some stated medical grounds. If that was the reason, the veil had to be lifted and the Tribunal should have, therefore, examined as to whether the impugned order infect was justifiably passed or not. Unfortunately the Tribunal failed to do so. And why did respondents Nos. If that was the reason, the veil had to be lifted and the Tribunal should have, therefore, examined as to whether the impugned order infect was justifiably passed or not. Unfortunately the Tribunal failed to do so. And why did respondents Nos. 1 to 3 not clearly come out with true facts and why were they hiding something under the facade of public interest". All this has to be enquired into. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed. The Tribunals order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in the light of the aforesaid observations. The parties present before us namely, the petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8th October, 2003. Before proceeding further the Tribunal shall make sure that it serves respondent No. 4 property.