Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 223 (MP)

ARVIND TIWARI v. STATE OF M P

2009-02-13

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER a Reserve Inspector of the Home (Police)Department of the State Government posted at Indore in the capacity of Inspector (Traffic) has challenged his transfer order dated 22. 1. 2009 (Annexure P-13) by which he has been transferred as Reserve Inspector District, Sidhi. ( 2. ) THE case of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order (Annexure p-13) is violative of the policy decision taken by the State Government vide circular dated 14. 2. 2007 (Annexure P-14), providing in the Clause 2 for the minimum period of posting of 2 years of various posts including the post held by the petitioner. In the said circular dated 14. 2. 2007 transfer of such police officers prior to completion of minimum 2 years period is permissible only if any of the conditions enumerated in the said circular dated 14. 2. 2007 is existing. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the impugned order has been issued by the Police Establishment board {for short the Board} without ratification/approval of the State Government and as such the same is violative of Clause 3 of the said circular. It is farther case of the petitioner that the sanctioned cadre strength of the Reserve Inspector as per M. P. Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 is 71. As per the Government Circular dated 7. 9. 2000 (Annexure P-2) the reserve Inspectors who have completed 5 years of substantive service as Reserve inspector shall be available for their posting either as an Inspector (Traffic) or reserve Inspector. He averred that the State Government issued yet another circular dated 27. 5. 2008 (Annexure P-3) providing that out of total Cadre strength of Reserve Inspector not more than 33% shall be posted as Inspector (Traffic ). Thus, according to the petitioner 23 incumbents can be posted as Inspector (Traffic)and as such petitioners posting as Inspector (Traffic) at Indore being in consonance of the circulars of the State Government he could not have been sent back as reserve Inspector, ignoring the need of control of Traffic situation of city of Indore. It has been also stated that there is no administrative exigency in transferring him at Sidhi at the cost of one administrative exigency and need of Inspector (Traffic)at Indore. It has been also stated that there is no administrative exigency in transferring him at Sidhi at the cost of one administrative exigency and need of Inspector (Traffic)at Indore. According to him, he has been subjected to frequent transfers and the issuance of the impugned transfer order is an arbitrary exercise of powers on the part of the respondents. ( 3. ) THE respondents filed reply and have stated that the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-13) has been passed on administrative grounds. It has been passed by the Board taking into consideration the administrative exigency that at Sidhi where the petitioner has been transferred, the post of Reserve Inspector was lying vacant. It was noticed by the Board that Sidhi District where the petitioner has been transferred as a Reserve Inspector is a sensitive place, and in the Assembly election held in 2008 in the absence of posting of the Reserve Inspector the administration had to face great difficulties. In order to overcome such situation during the forthcoming Parliamentary Elections of 2009 the petitioner has been transferred to Sidhi and posted on his substantial post as Reserve Inspector. The respondents have placed on record the minutes of the meeting held by the Board as Annexure R-1. Thus, the case of the respondents is that the petitioners transfer order is based on administrative grounds and the State has the total discretion to pass such transfer order for achieving the administrative convenience. ( 4. ) THE petitioner has filed rejoinder and has stated that in place of the petitioner no one has been posted at Indore as Inspector (Traffic) and as such the petitioners posting at Sidhi may not serve the administrative exigencies and the. public purpose. According to him, the respondents have completely ignored the traffic hazard of the city like Indore and such an important aspect cannot be thrown to winds at the cost of alleged administrative exigency. In the rejoinder the responsibilities and duties of Reserve Inspector as also of Subedar have been quoted. ( 5. ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. ( 6. ) FROM the averments made by the parties there cannot be a dispute that as per the Government Circulars a Reserve Inspector can be posted as Inspector (Traffic ). ( 5. ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. ( 6. ) FROM the averments made by the parties there cannot be a dispute that as per the Government Circulars a Reserve Inspector can be posted as Inspector (Traffic ). The total number of Inspector (Traffic) which can be posted out of the total strength of Reserve Inspector may be to the extent of 23. However, the moot question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner can claim any right to remain posted as Inspector (Traffic) and whether his transfer is malaise, arbitrary or in breach of any statutory rule or is an outcome of colourable exercise of powers on the part of the Board. ( 7. ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have examined the circular dated 14. 2. 2007 (Annexure P-14) which provides that the minimum tenure of Police Officer posted in Range as Inspector general, Deputy Inspector General and the Police Officers posted in the District as Superintendent of Police, S. D. O. (P), City Superintendent of Police and Station house-officer (Inchargo Police Station) shall be of 2 years unless the competent authority decides to post them elsewhere on account of setting up of departmental enquiry or on conviction for a criminal offence or for conviction for moral turpitude or in the case of dereliction of duty or on failure to control the serious law and order condition or on their promotion or superannuation. Thus, the minimum period of 2 years posting is provided amongst the other officers is in regard to the post of the Station House Officer/police Station Incharge and not to the Inspector (Traffic ). ( 8. ) THE petitioner on the basis of letters dated 3. 10. 2008 (Annexure P-10)and 19. 8. 2008 (Annexure P-11) written to him by Additional S. P. City (East Indore)and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic Indore) in regard to routine duty work of management of the Traffic in which he has been addressed as Incharge police Station (Traffic) Eastern Area, Indore cannot claim his status or posting to be of the S. H. O. /police Station Incharge. To my mind, such protection of tenure provided in Clause 2 of the Circular is not available to the petitioner who is posted as Inspector (Traffic ). To my mind, such protection of tenure provided in Clause 2 of the Circular is not available to the petitioner who is posted as Inspector (Traffic ). The petitioners substantive post is Reserve Inspector and he was transferred and posted at Indore as Inspector (Traffic ). He being not posted as Station House Officer/incharge of any police station, Clause 2 of the circular dated 14. 2. 2007 providing the minimum period of 2 years at one place in respect of various officers including Station House Officer is not applicable to the post which the petitioner is holding. In the circumstances, the petitioners transfer order cannot be said to be violative of the said Clause of the Circular. ( 9. ) AS regards the petitioners contention that the State Government has not approved or ratified the decision of the Board as required under Clause 3 of the circular dated 14. 2. 2007, and, therefore, his transfer is illegal, also cannot be accepted. Clause-3 (2) of the said Circular empowered the Board to take decision about transfer and posting of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Officers subordinate to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It also provides that in exceptional circumstances the State Government shall have power to interfere into a decision taken by the Board. It further provides that the decision of transfer as may be taken by the Board shall be sent to the State Government before execution of the said decision. Thus the board had full power to take decision about the petitioners transfer. In the present case after taking the decision to transfer the petitioner, a copy of the transfer order dated 22. 1. 2009 was sent by the Board to the State Government on 22. 1. 2009 itself and, therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer order has been passed in violation of the said clause of the circular. ( 10. ) THE petitioners claim that he has been subjected to frequent transfers also cannot be accepted. Prior to the impugned transfer order dated 22. 1. 2009 on 7. 11. 2007 the petitioner was transferred from Police Headquarters Bhopal to district Chattarpur as Reserve Inspector and thereafter from Chhattarpur he was transferred to Indore vide order dated 10. 7. 2008 (Annexure P-8 ). Prior to the impugned transfer order dated 22. 1. 2009 on 7. 11. 2007 the petitioner was transferred from Police Headquarters Bhopal to district Chattarpur as Reserve Inspector and thereafter from Chhattarpur he was transferred to Indore vide order dated 10. 7. 2008 (Annexure P-8 ). These two earlier transfers cannot make the case of the petitioner as of frequent transfers more particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner is serving in the police department of the State Government and he has been transferred for administrative exigency. ( 11. ) AS regards the petitioners grievance that there is no administrative exigency for passing the impugned transfer I find no merit in it. As is clear from the minutes of the meeting held by the Board, the petitioner has been transferred to District Sidhi on the vacant post of Reserve Inspector. The Board considering that at a sensitive District Sidhi a post of Reserve Inspector was lying vacant and also noticing the fact that in the elections of the Legislative Assembly held in 2008 there was great administrative difficulty in the absence of posting of the Reserve inspector. Thus, taking into account the past experience and need of posting of reserve Inspector at Sidhi in the forthcoming Parliamentary Elections of 2009 it was deemed proper by the Board to fill up the vacant post of Reserve Inspector at District Sidhi. Accordingly, the petitioner who was holding the substantive post of Reserve Inspector was ordered to be transferred to fill up the said vacant post. Thus, the decision of Board is based on administrative ground and there is no arbitrary or colourable exercise of the powers on the part of the Board in transferring the petitioner. Thus, even if as per the circulars of the State Government the Reserve Inspectors can be posted as Inspector (Traffic) but that will not give any right to the petitioner to remain posted as such. The Board or the State government have powers to transfer the Reserve Inspector posted as Inspector (Traffic) back as Reserve Inspector in case of administrative exigency. ( 12. ) IT is now well settled that transfer of an employee is an incident of service and it is the right of the employer to transfer its employee to any place depending upon the exigencies, requirement and need. ( 12. ) IT is now well settled that transfer of an employee is an incident of service and it is the right of the employer to transfer its employee to any place depending upon the exigencies, requirement and need. No employee can legally assert that he has a right to remain at a particular place. No malafide could be established in issuance of the impugned transfer order. The petitioners contention that no one has been posted at his place and, therefore, there would be dearth of Inspector (Traffic) to regulate the hazardous traffic at Indore is no ground to quash,the petitioners transfer order so long as no infirmity is found in his transfer. It is for the administration to deploy adequate police personnels to control the traffic of indore City. This Court hopes and trusts that the adequate number of police personnels shall be deployed by the State Government to control the traffic situation at Indore. However, this aspect has to be seen by the administration and the petitioner is not entitled to remain at Indore as Inspector (Traffic) when his transfer is based on sound administrative grounds. ( 13. ) ACCORDINGLY, no case for interference in the impugned transfer order is made out. The petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to the costs. Petition dismissed.