Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1368 (MP)

Lalta Prasad Mishra v. State of M. P.

2006-12-02

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2006
ORDER 1. Petitioner is working on the post of Sub-Inspector in the Home (Police) Department of the State of M.P. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by the third respondent Superintendent of Police District Anooppur posting the petitioner from Police Station, Rajendragram to Police Station Kotma, the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. The petitioner contends that he has been subjected to frequent transfers, and this mid-term transfer without approval of the In-charge Minister is contrary to the transfer policy. He also contends that he has been transferred by the third respondent to accommodate the fourth respondent. According to him, the third respondent knowing full well that the petitioner will be retiring on 1.12.2007 has malafidely issued the transfer order so as to cause inconvenience to him. 3. Shri Alok Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the impugned order is an order of local posting from one police station to other police station within district. He submits that the third respondent Superintendent of Police is competent to post Sub-Inspectors from one police station to other police station for administrative exigencies and for that the approval is not needed. According to him the bald allegations of the petitioner against the third respondent without there being any material to establish mala fide, cannot be accepted. He submits that the petitioner has not been subjected to frequent transfers. He submits that on 28.6.2005 the petitioner was transferred from Satna to Anooppur and was posted at Jaithari on 17.8.2005. On 31.10.2005 for performing special duty during the Diwali and Id-ul-fitre he was assigned the job to control the law and order situation at Umaria by the second respondent Inspector General, Rewa Zone. Thereafter the specia11aw and order duty was assigned to him at Manpur on 8.11.2005. Thereafter he was again brought to Anooppur District and posted at Rajendragram on 25.8.2006 vide Annexure P-9. Thereafter posting order has been issued by the third respondent for administrative reason and he has been posted from police station Rajendragram to Police Station Kotma vide order dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) and the fourth respondent has been posted at his place. Thereafter he was again brought to Anooppur District and posted at Rajendragram on 25.8.2006 vide Annexure P-9. Thereafter posting order has been issued by the third respondent for administrative reason and he has been posted from police station Rajendragram to Police Station Kotma vide order dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) and the fourth respondent has been posted at his place. Thus according to the respondents No.1 to 3 the petitioner is continuing in Anooppur District since 28.6.2005 and was temporarily for managing the law and orders situation during festivals was sent in Umaria District, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers. 4. Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner has levelled false and baseless allegations that the impugned order has been issued by the third respondent to oblige the fourth respondent. According to him this being a local posting from one police station to other at a distance of 17 kms., no case for interference is made out. He submits that pursuant to the said impugned transfer order the fourth respondent has already joined at police station Rajendragram. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground to interfere into the impugned order dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) by which the third respondent has posted the petitioner from police station Rajendragram to Police Station Kotma within the same district for administrative exigencies. It is also not found to be a case of frequent transfers. The earlier orders shows that the petitioner was assigned the urgent law and order duties for administrative exigencies. 6. Transfer is an incident of Govt. service, who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of statutory provisions the Court cannot interfere with it. No foundation of mala fide are pleaded and established, in the circumstances no inference can be drawn on the basis of vague suggestions. As already observed from the earlier orders of transfers/postings it cannot be said that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers. 7. Since the petitioner has been shifted from one police station to other police station, no case of violation of transfer policy is made out. As already observed from the earlier orders of transfers/postings it cannot be said that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers. 7. Since the petitioner has been shifted from one police station to other police station, no case of violation of transfer policy is made out. So far as the petitioner's contention that he will be retiring with effect from 1.12.2007 and therefore, the impugned order dated 16.11.2006 would cause inconvenience to him has also got no merit. The petitioner has been shifted from one police station to other in the same district at a distance of 17 kms., therefore, the ground of inconvenience and his retirement on 1.12.2007 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.