Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1091 (PNJ)

EHC Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana

2012-08-18

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners are seeking quashing of the transfer policy dated 2.4.2010/8.4.2010 framed by the respondents on the ground that the same is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and runs counter to the Punjab Police Rules, besides being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As a consequence of this challenge, the petitioners would plead quashing of their transfer order, transferring them out of their home district pursuant to the said policy. 2. At the outset, the counsel for the petitioners was asked to make submission if the petitioners would have any right to maintain challenge to the order of transfer, which has been raised in this case obliquely under the garb of challenging the transfer policy formulated by pleading that the same is contrary to the Rules. 3. The only response that the counsel for the petitioner could make was on the basis of Rule 14.47 of the Punjab Police Rules (for short, “the Rules”). The plea appears to be that the transfer policy, Annexure P-1 would violate Rule 14.47 of the Rules as no official is to be posted to his home district, which is contrary to the said Rule. Rule 14.47 of the Rules provides that Inspectors and Sub Inspectors not to serve in their home district. The Rule reads:- “Except for special reasons and with the approval of the Inspector General in each case, no Sub Inspector shall be posted to a permanent appointment in the district in which his home is situated. The same Rule will govern the postings of Inspectors. The Rule will not, however, apply to the appointments to the clerical posts or posts of Lines Officers or Reserve Inspectors, nor will it affect the posting of European Inspector or Sergeants.” 4. Apparently, the transfer policy is not violating the Rule 14.47 of the Rules. Said Rule only provides that Inspectors and Sub Inspectors not to serve in their home district. The Rule does not say that others have to serve in their home district and can not be transferred to any place other than their home district. Apparently, the transfer policy is not violating the Rule 14.47 of the Rules. Said Rule only provides that Inspectors and Sub Inspectors not to serve in their home district. The Rule does not say that others have to serve in their home district and can not be transferred to any place other than their home district. There may not be any prohibition for transferring officials other than Inspectors and Sub Inspectors in their home districts but the Rule certainly can not be read in a manner that they have to remain in their home district and can not be transferred out of their home district. Accordingly, the transfer policy in no manner is in violation of Rule 14.47 of the Rules, when it provides that no official shall be posted to his home district. In a way, this policy appears to have been made for the purpose of good administration. Police official posted in home district can cause interference in the functioning of police if he is made to serve in his home district and this policy so framed appears to be for the purpose of achieving good police service for public at large. The idea behind formulating this policy appears to be good and laudable. 5. In fact, reference to Rule 14.47 of the Rules is being made in isolation by the counsel for the petitioners by ignoring the other provisions in the Rules. Rule 1.5 of the Rules talks of limits of jurisdiction and liability to transfer. This rule provides that all police officers appointed or enrolled in either of the two general police districts constitute one police force and are liable to and legally empowered for police duty anywhere within the province. No sub division of the force territorially or by classes, such as mounted and foot police affects this principle. Thus, every police officer is liable to serve at any place whether within or outside the State of Haryana and in any organisation under the Central Government or being ordered to do so by the appointing authority. Then Rule 12.26 talks of inter-district transfer. Rule 15.15 clearly provides that all enrolled police officers, under Section 22 of the Police Act, are liable for service in any part of the general police District. Then Rule 12.26 talks of inter-district transfer. Rule 15.15 clearly provides that all enrolled police officers, under Section 22 of the Police Act, are liable for service in any part of the general police District. It is, thus, not possible to say that certain set of police officials can not be transferred out of their home district and if any policy is made to not to post any police officer in the home district, it would violate any Rule. 6. Even otherwise, the counsel has not been able to make any submission of substance to make out a case for interference in a policy of transfer so formed by the State or by the competent authority, when it is purely an incident of service and an administrative decision of the competent authority to deploy the force in the manner it would wish to. As has been consistently viewed by various courts that transfer is ordinarily an incident of service and the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders. 7. The petitioners indeed are challenging their transfer order but have been smart enough to challenge it in an oblique manner by raising a challenge against the policy of transfer. It has also been observed by the Courts in large number of cases that the transfer and posting of police men must be left in the discretion of the concerned State authorities, which are in the best position to assess the necessity of administrative authorities. The deployment of the police force is required to be done depending upon the assessment of the law and order situation, which can only be appreciated by the competent authority, who has to deploy the police force. These basically are purely administrative matters and the courts ordinarily do not interfere in administrative matters and generally maintains judicial restrains in this regard. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal Nos.8690-8701 of 2010 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Kashmir Singh and another) [2010(6) Law Herald (SC) 3723 : 2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 2991], has made certain very pertinent observations in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere in such like transfer matters. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal Nos.8690-8701 of 2010 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Kashmir Singh and another) [2010(6) Law Herald (SC) 3723 : 2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 2991], has made certain very pertinent observations in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere in such like transfer matters. Commenting upon the High Court order, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had taken an impractical view and if it was to prevail, then great difficulty will be created for the State Administration as it would then not be able to transfer and deploy police force from one place, where there may be relative peace, to another district or region/range in the State where there may be disturbed law and order situation, hence requirement of more police. The Hon’ble Court has further observed that the State Administration can not function with its hands tied by the judiciary behind its back. The observation of Justice Homes have been noticed to the effect that “there must be some free play of joints provided to the executive authorities.” There is neither any cause made out for interference in the transfer policy nor the transfer policy is seen to be violating any rule. 8. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition, which otherwise is apparently misconceived and accordingly is dismissed.