JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner, an Inspector in the Civil Police, has sought the quashing of the order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 passed by the Director General of Police (Establishment) with the approval of the Police Establishment Board by which the petitioner has been transferred from Chandauli to Cooperative Cell, Lucknow after cancelling the earlier transfer order dated 18th December, 2007. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 22nd December, 2010 passed by the Director General of Police by which the earlier order dated 17th December, 2010 passed by him for keeping in abeyance the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 has been cancelled and a direction has been issued for ensuring compliance of the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police in 1998. He was awarded out of turn promotion on the post of Inspector on 11th March, 2002 for showing exemplary courage and bravery. He was also awarded the President’s Award for bravery on 18th October, 2002. On 28th November, 2006 the petitioner arrested three persons found to be in possession of firearms without any valid licence. One of the accused had political connection as he was the husband of the Block Pramukh of Behraini, District Chandauli and a close associate of the then local Member of Legislative Assembly Sri Ram Kishan Yadav who later became the Member of Parliament. The aforesaid arrest annoyed the local M.L.A. who wrote to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi to forthwith suspend the petitioner. The petitioner was then suspended on 1st December, 2006 for the reason that he did not behave with the local Member of Legislative Assembly Ram Kishan Yadav in a manner expected from a Sub-Inspector. The suspension order was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 66493 of 2006 in which an interim order was granted on 8th December, 2006 staying the suspension order dated 1st December, 2006. The petitioner was then transferred from District Chandauli to District Jaunpur by the order dated 8th/9th December, 2006 which order was also stayed by the Court on 14th December, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 68231 of 2006. These orders were not complied with as a result of which the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in which notices were issued. The petitioner was then transferred from District Chandauli to District Jaunpur by the order dated 8th/9th December, 2006 which order was also stayed by the Court on 14th December, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 68231 of 2006. These orders were not complied with as a result of which the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in which notices were issued. However, further transfer orders dated 20th February, 2007 and 21st February, 2007 were passed which were assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10822 of 2007 which petition was dismissed but in Special Appeal No. 374 of 2007 filed by the petitioner the Court passed an order on 3rd April, 2007 staying the transfer order and the relieving order and the portion of the order is quoted below : “5. Apart from the breach of the very relevant instruction of the Election Commission, serious mala fides are attributed by the appellant to point out as to why this transfer order is affected. It is placed on record that certain persons, who were carrying arms, were arrested by the appellant and the M.L.A. of the ruling party from the particular area tried to interfere with it. He has placed on record a letter written by the M.L.A. dated 30.11.2006 addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police specifically saying that the appellant has arrested the persons who were supporters of the M.L.A. and the appellant should immediately be suspended, so that he does not interfere with the activities of the M.L.A. concerned. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police ought to have taken action against the M.L.A. himself for interfering into the lawful duty of the police officer but what has happened that the request of the M.L.A. was accepted and the appellant was suspended. This led to the filing of a writ petition, wherein the order of suspension was stayed. Thereafter the appellant was transferred. That order was also challenged and was stayed on an earlier occasion. 7. Now it is sought to be contended that the appellant has completed three years at the particular place and, therefore, he is required to be transferred. 8. This background of the matter has got to be noted and when the officer is relieved on the eve of the election, undoubtedly this raises the suspicion. These serious allegations of the mala fides will have to be answered by the respondents. 9. 8. This background of the matter has got to be noted and when the officer is relieved on the eve of the election, undoubtedly this raises the suspicion. These serious allegations of the mala fides will have to be answered by the respondents. 9. What has happened is that the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the first date and, therefore, the respondent did not get any opportunity of filing counter-affidavit. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 states that the respondents would like to file a counter-affidavit. He was specifically asked as to whether the respondents were agreeable that the appellant be allowed to join back at least for a couple of months, but he has stated that his instructions do not permit to agree with it. Thereafter he was also specifically asked as to whether the matter could be sent back to the Single Judge by granting stay. To that also, his answer is that his instructions are to file counter-affidavit. That being so, this aspect will be gone into the appeal Court. 11. In view of what is stated above, the matter requires consideration. 12. The appeal is admitted. Notice to be issued to respondent No. 6, who is M.L.A. of the concerned area. The respondents 2 and 3 will file counter-affidavit to this appeal to explain their role in this matter. 13. In the meanwhile and until further hearing, there will be interim stay of the order of transfer as well as order of relieving the appellant from the concerned police station. The respondents 1 to 5 are directed to allow the appellant to resume on his duty forthwith by relieving whosoever is the officer-in-charge of the police station. The respondent No. 2 and particularly the respondent No. 3 will be responsible, if any harassment is caused to the appellant in discharge of his duty while functioning at the concerned police station. 14. Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 needs two weeks’ time to file counter-affidavit. The to stand over to 24th of April, 2007 by which date the respondents may file counter-affidavit.” (emphasis supplied) 3. The respondents thereafter proceeded to again suspend the petitioner by the order dated 22nd June, 2007 mentioning therein that he was careless in discharging his duties. The to stand over to 24th of April, 2007 by which date the respondents may file counter-affidavit.” (emphasis supplied) 3. The respondents thereafter proceeded to again suspend the petitioner by the order dated 22nd June, 2007 mentioning therein that he was careless in discharging his duties. This suspension order was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 28818 of 2007 which was dismissed with a direction to the authorities to conclude the disciplinary enquiry within three months. Even during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner was transferred by the order dated 21st December, 2007 which transfer order was assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 267 of 2008 in which an interim order was passed on 17th January, 2008 staying the transfer order. In the meantime, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report dated 26th February, 2008 exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. This report was accepted by the disciplinary authority on 27th February, 2008. However, as the petitioner was not reinstated in service, he filed Writ Petition No. 14323 of 2008 but during the pendency of the writ petition, the State Government passed an order for a fresh enquiry. This order was assailed by the petitioner by moving an amendment application in the said writ petition. Writ Petition No. 14323 of 2008 was ultimately allowed by the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2010 with the following observations : “The background of the case is that the petitioner was posted as an Inspector at Kotwali Mugalsarai, District Chandauli. The petitioner in an incident that occurred on 28th November, 2006 arrested three persons found to be in possession of fire arms without having any valid license. One of the accused had a political connection as he happened to be the husband of the Block Pramukh of Behraini, District Chandauli and a close associate of the then local M.L.A. Sri Ram Kishun Yadav, who later on is alleged to have become a Member of Parliament. The aforesaid arrest led to the annoyance of the local M.L.A. who called upon the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi to forthwith suspend the petitioner and as a result whereof, the petitioner came to be suspended on 1st December, 2006. The grounds for suspension recited in the order were misbehaviour with the local M.L.A., Mugalsarai Sri Ram Kishun Yadav. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Civil Misc. The grounds for suspension recited in the order were misbehaviour with the local M.L.A., Mugalsarai Sri Ram Kishun Yadav. Aggrieved the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66493 of 2006 and the suspension order dated 1st December, 2006 was stayed on 8.12.2006. The said writ petition was opposed by the said M.L.A. on its filing and immediately after passing of the interim order, on the very next day, the petitioner came to be transferred. This transfer order was also challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68231 of 2006, in which an interim order was granted on 14.12.2006. Inspite of the aforesaid interim orders, the compliance was not made. Consequently, a Contempt Application No. 68 of 2007 was filed. On the filing of the contempt application, the petitioner was given charge of Kotwali Mugalsarai and accordingly the contempt application was dismissed on 9.2.2007. The petitioner was again transferred on 20/21.2.2007 from District Chandauli to District Varanasi, which was again challenged by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10822 of 2007 but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 374 of 2007, in which the Division Bench as an interim measure stayed the order of transfer calling upon the respondents to file their counter-affidavit, vide order dated 30.4.2007. The respondent-Officers arrayed therein, instead of filing a counter-affidavit to the affidavit in the special appeal, proceeded to suspend the petitioner on 22nd June, 2007 for charges of negligence in duty. The said order was challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28818 of 2007, which was disposed of on 2.11.2007 with a direction to the authorities to dispose of the matter and complete the enquiry within three months. Certain observations were made in relation to the trivial and flimsy nature of the charges in the said order. ..................... The orders of the State Government and the Superintendent of Police suffer from malice in law. (See para 9 of (2004) 4 SCC Pg. 666). In view of the aforesaid conclusions drawn, both the orders dated 27.2.2008 and 24.3.2008 are unsustainable in law. This Court has ample powers to mould the relief in order to do justice between the parties. In view of the findings as arrived at, it is necessary in the interest of justice to set aside the order dated 27.2.2008 as well. In view of the aforesaid conclusions drawn, both the orders dated 27.2.2008 and 24.3.2008 are unsustainable in law. This Court has ample powers to mould the relief in order to do justice between the parties. In view of the findings as arrived at, it is necessary in the interest of justice to set aside the order dated 27.2.2008 as well. Accordingly, the orders dated 27.2.2008 passed by the Superintendent of Police and the order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the State Government are quashed. Quashing of the order of the Superintendent of Police will however not automatically revive the disciplinary proceedings, so long as the Superintendent of Police does not pass an order recording his reasons for either accepting the enquiry report or disagreeing with the same. In the event, the Superintendent of Police chooses to disagree with the enquiry report then in that event, the petitioner will again be entitled for an opportunity before any orders are passed by him. In the event, the Superintendent of Police agrees with the enquiry report then he shall record his reasons in brief and forward the same to the controlling authority namely the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 7 of the 1991 Rules. After, the proceedings if concluded in favour of the petitioner, the State Government if it finds it necessary to proceed in the matter by exercise of its suo moto powers, then in that event the State Government can exercise its powers in the light of the observations made hereinabove and subject to the restrictions contained in Rule 25 of the 1991 Rules. The petitioner has already been reinstated in service and, therefore, his status as such shall not be disturbed, inasmuch as, the quashing of the order dated 27.2.2008 will not revive the suspension order dated 20.6.2007 at this stage. Passing of this order shall not be in any way be an impediment to the State Government or authorities in relation to the transfer and posting of the petitioner in the administrative exigencies of the State. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs.” (emphasis supplied) 4. Passing of this order shall not be in any way be an impediment to the State Government or authorities in relation to the transfer and posting of the petitioner in the administrative exigencies of the State. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs.” (emphasis supplied) 4. It is immediately after the passing of the aforesaid judgment and order on 23rd August, 2010 that the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli passed an order dated 27th August, 2010 for transfer of the petitioner from Police Station Mugalsarai, Chandauli to In-charge Police Station, Chakiya, Chandauli. This order takes notice of the fact that the High Court in its judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2010 had observed that the order shall not in any way be an impediment for transfer or posting of the petitioner in administrative exigencies of the State. The order also notices that the petitioner had been working as Inspector from 5th September, 2003 to 8th December, 2006 and then from 31st January, 2007 to 22nd June, 2007 in Kotwali, Mugalsarai and from 8th October, 2009 till the date of the order as In-charge Inspector, Kotwali, Mugalsarai. 5. Thereafter, another transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 was passed for transfer of the petitioner from district Chandauli to Cooperative Cell, Lucknow on the basis of the decision taken by the Police Establishment Board. This transfer order was cancelled by the Director General of Police (Establishment) by the order dated 17th December, 2010 for the reason that approval of the State Government was not taken but soon thereafter by the order dated 22nd December, 2010 the Director General of Police (Establishment) cancelled the order dated 17th December, 2010. This order mentions that the order dated 17th December, 2010 had been passed since the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 had been passed without taking approval from the State Government but it was found that the petitioner’s matter was not covered by the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2010 and so approval was not required. 6. This petition, therefore, seeks the quashing of the order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 as also the order dated 22nd December, 2010 passed by the Director General of Police (Establishment). 7. I have heard Sri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 8. 6. This petition, therefore, seeks the quashing of the order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 as also the order dated 22nd December, 2010 passed by the Director General of Police (Establishment). 7. I have heard Sri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 deserves to be set aside as it has been passed in a mala fide manner and in this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the various suspension orders and transfer orders which had been passed ever since the petitioner made arrest of three persons, one of whom turned out to be the husband of the Block Pramukh who had close association with the local M.L.A. who later became Member of Parliament. He has pointed out that this fact had been noted by the Division Bench in its interim order dated 3rd April, 2007 in Special Appeal No. 374 of 2007 and in fact positive directions had been issued to the respondents to ensure that no harassment is caused to the appellant in discharging his duties while functioning at the concerned Police Station but subsequent events reveal that the Department continued to harass the petitioner. 9. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 is contrary to the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2010 as transfer has been made without seeking the approval of the State Government. In this connection he has pointed out that the petitioner was posted as Incharge Inspector of Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli and, therefore, if any transfer order was to be made within a period of two years, then the Police Establishment Board was also required to take approval from the State Government but in the present case no such approval was taken. In this connection he has also pointed out that by the order dated 17th December, 2010 the Director General of Police (Establishment) had earlier cancelled the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 for this reason, but soon thereafter he cancelled his order dated 17th December, 2010 and issued directions for compliance of the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 as according to him the case of the petitioner was not covered by the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2010. It is his submission that for erroneous reasons the Director General of Police (Establishment) cancelled the order dated 17th December, 2010 since the petitioner could be transferred only in accordance with the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2010. 10. Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has, however, contended that the decision to transfer the petitioner from District Chandauli to Cooperative Cell, Lucknow was taken by the Police Establishment Board and it cannot be urged by the petitioner that he had been transferred for mala fide reasons. It is also his contention that though by the order dated 27th August, 2010 the petitioner was posted as Incharge Inspector, Chakiya, Chandauli but the petitioner did not join and after 53 days he was permitted to report before the Reserve Inspector at Police Lines Mugalsarai and thereafter the petitioner did report on 19th October, 2010. It is, therefore, his submission that the petitioner was not posted as Incharge of the Police Station and, therefore, the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2010 will not come to the aid of the petitioner and it is for this reason that by the order dated 22nd December, 2010 the Director General of Police (Establishment) cancelled his earlier order dated 17th December, 2010 by which the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 had been cancelled. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The records indicate that though the petitioner was granted out of turn promotion on 11th March, 2002 to the post of Inspector for showing exemplary courage and bravery and he was also awarded the President’s Award for bravery on 18th October, 2002 but troubles for the petitioner started when he made arrest of three persons in connection with the incident that happened on 28th November, 2006 as they were found to be in possession of the firearms without any valid licence and one of the three arrested persons happened to be the husband of the Block Pramukh of Behraini, District Chandauli who was a close associate of the then M.L.A. who later became Member of Parliament. It was noticed by the Division Bench in its interim order dated 3rd April, 2007 in Special Appeal No. 374 of 2007, that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) should have taken action against the M.L.A. himself for interfering with the lawful duty of the Police Officer but the request of the M.L.A. was accepted and the petitioner was suspended. This suspension order was stayed by the High Court on 8th December, 2006 but the petitioner, by an order of the same date, was transferred which transfer order was also stayed on 14th December, 2006. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition as these two interim orders were not complied with but the department issued yet another transfer order and relieving order in February, 2007. These orders were assailed by the petitioner in writ petition which was dismissed and it is against this dismissal order that Special Appeal No. 374 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner in which a detailed interim order was passed by the Court on 3rd April, 2007 in which strong observations were made by the Court against the Department and which order has been quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. The respondents did not stop at this stage and soon proceeded to suspend the petitioner on 22nd June, 2007 on the allegation that he was careless in discharging his duties. This order was assailed by the petitioner in a writ petition which was dismissed with a direction that the disciplinary enquiry should be concluded. The respondents did not stop at this stage and soon proceeded to suspend the petitioner on 22nd June, 2007 on the allegation that he was careless in discharging his duties. This order was assailed by the petitioner in a writ petition which was dismissed with a direction that the disciplinary enquiry should be concluded. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges and the Superintendent of Police also accepted the enquiry report. However, as the petitioner was not reinstated in service, he filed a writ petition which has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2010 observing that since the petitioner has been reinstated in service, his status as such shall not be disturbed but the order shall not be an impediment for the State Government or the authorities in relation to the transfer and posting of the petitioner in administrative exigencies of the State. 13. Within four days of the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 2010, transfer order dated 27th August, 2010 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli transferring the petitioner from Police Station Kotwali, Mugalsarai to In-charge Inspector, Chakiya, District Chandauli. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has made submissions that after the transfer order dated 27th August, 2010 was passed, the petitioner absconded for 53 days and thereafter when the petitioner was permitted to report before the Reserve Inspector, Police Lines, Mugalsarai, and the petitioner actually reported, he cannot contend that he was Incharge of the Police Station, Chakiya, District Chandauli. This contention of the learned Additional Advocate General of the State cannot be accepted. No order has has been placed before the Court which may indicate that the petitioner had actually been transferred to the Police Lines from his posting as Incharge Inspector, Chakiya, District Chandauli. The transfer order dated 27th August, 2010 was in force though the petitioner may have been permitted to report before the Reserve Inspector, Police Lines. 15. It is, therefore, clear that though the petitioner was posted as In-charge Inspector, Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli on 27th August, 2010 but he has been transferred to Cooperative Cell, Lucknow by the order dated 8th/9th December, 2010. 15. It is, therefore, clear that though the petitioner was posted as In-charge Inspector, Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli on 27th August, 2010 but he has been transferred to Cooperative Cell, Lucknow by the order dated 8th/9th December, 2010. This order has been passed within two years and, therefore, in terms of the Government Order dated 2nd December, 2010 permission of the State Government was necessary for transferring the petitioner but such permission has not been obtained. 16. The transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 passed by the Director General of Police (Establishment) cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents from passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 17. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. —————