Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 734 (PAT)

Sujata Roy v. State of Bihar

2012-05-07

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner, a Constable in the State police, is aggrieved by the order dated 20.6.2011 transferring her inter zone from Patna to Vaishali. 3. It is submitted that an order of transfer was initially passed on 29.4.2011 transferring her to Gaya. Though the order cited administrative reasons, it was primarily punitive in nature as it simultaneously directed holding of departmental proceedings. Frivolous allegations were made with regard to her character. The petitioner represented. On 4.5.2011 she has been transferred to Vaishali which is a different zone. Unlike the earlier order, the present order does not state that it was for administrative reasons. The normal tenure in a zone under Section 10 of the Bihar Police Act, 2007 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) was 10 years. The petitioner has not completed that period since 26.12.2003. Procedures for approval prescribed in Section 10 of the Act for an inter zone transfer had not been followed. The belated approval of the committee concerned during the pendency of the writ application on 27.4.2012 is not bona fide. 4. Counsel for the State submits that once post facto approval has been obtained under Section 10 of the Act, the Court may not interfere with the order of transfer. The order for departmental proceedings have been annulled by the same order. 5. Transfer and postings are normal incidence of service. The Court shall normally be circumspect in interfering with orders for transfer, especially where it relates to the police force, as distinct from a civilian service. 6. The petitioner was first transferred to Gaya on 29.4.2011. Her representation pursuant to the same does not raise any objection that it was contrary to procedures under Section 10 of the Act either with regard to the duration for posting in a zone or the manner in which the order was required to be passed. Section 10 of the Act does not contain any absolute interdict that a Constable cannot be transferred from one zone to another till completion of 10 years. The fact that it may indicate a likely period for which a Constable may be kept in a zone shall not vest a statutory right to demand continuance for the entirety of the same. The respondents have to be permitted the flexibility even during the period, in the interest of work and discipline. The fact that it may indicate a likely period for which a Constable may be kept in a zone shall not vest a statutory right to demand continuance for the entirety of the same. The respondents have to be permitted the flexibility even during the period, in the interest of work and discipline. Once post facto approval has been granted by the Committee concerned on 27.4.2012 to the transfer, the question of the Court interfering does not arise. 7. Merely because an order for transfer may refer to any grounds, it shall not make it punitive. The grounds can be relevant for the purpose of transfer only and cannot have any effect on the service career unless the allegations are not proved in accordance with law in a regular departmental proceeding. To hold that even for transfer on allegations it must be preceded by a regular departmental proceeding, may well render the administrative power for transfer impossible. Reference may appropriately be made to (2004) 4 SCC 245 (Union of India Vs. Janardan Debarath). The issue has now become irrelevant with cancellation of the Departmental proceedings. 8. The writ application is dismissed. ?