Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3886 (ALL)

RAMESH CHAND PANDEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-12-09

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Sahab Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.C. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed in Civil Police and subsequently, he was sent to the Intelligence Department, where he served more than 25 years and yet he is not being repatriated to his parent department, i.e., Civil Police despite repeated request. He submits that no consent was given by the petitioner for sending him to the Intelligence Department and as such in view of the Government Order dated 6.1.1956 as well as the policy decision dated 24.10.1999, he cannot be retained in the Intelligence Department and he must be repatriated to the Civil Police. He therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 5.5.2013 had been passed in breach of the aforesaid Government Order and the policy decision of the State Government. 3. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Ranbir Singh Malik v. Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Department, U.P., Lucknow and another, 2003 (3) ESC (All) 1404 and the judgement in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1998 (2) AWC 960 . 4. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 10.9.1990 in the Police Department and Intelligence Department was allocated to him. By the aforesaid appointment order dated 10.9.1990, he was directed to appear before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), U.P., Lucknow and to obtain his order of posting. 7. Since, the very beginning of his service, undisputedly, the petitioner is working in the Intelligence Department, as he was allotted the Intelligence Department. The policy decision of the State Government, as referred in the office memorandum dated 24.10.1999, and relied by the petitioner does not support the case of the petitioner. 7. Since, the very beginning of his service, undisputedly, the petitioner is working in the Intelligence Department, as he was allotted the Intelligence Department. The policy decision of the State Government, as referred in the office memorandum dated 24.10.1999, and relied by the petitioner does not support the case of the petitioner. The aforesaid policy decision provides for giving option during the course of the recruitment process and in case of transfer from Civil Police to Intelligence Department, it is provided that the transferee shall remain in Intelligence department for five years and thereafter he shall be repatriated to the Civil Police. The aforesaid policy decision also provides for promotion of Sub Inspectors, who have been appointed in the Intelligence Department after training and they remained in the Intelligence Department. Thus, the aforesaid policy decision does not support the case of the petitioner. 8. The judgement in the case of Ranbir Singh Malik (supra) is clearly distinguishable as evident from paragraph-2 of the judgement. The petitioner of that writ petition was initially appointed as Sub- Inspector in Civil Police in the year 1982, and thereafter, he was transferred to Local Intelligence Unit, Muzaffarnagar. Similarly, in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh (supra), the petitioner of that writ petition was initially appointed as Sub Inspector in Civil Police in district Agra in November 1982, and was given posting at Police Station Khairagarh, New Agra. By order dated 21.7.1985, he was transferred from Civil Police to Intelligence Department. Thus, both these judgements are on the facts that the petitioners of those writ petitions were initially appointed and were given posting in the Civil Police and after few years, they were transferred to the Intelligence Department. The facts of the present case are entirely different. 9. The petitioner of the present writ petition was appointed in the Intelligence Department by appointment order dated 10.9.1990 and as per findings recorded in the impugned order, he undergone training in Intelligence Department. It is also observed in the impugned order, that he is trained in intelligence and, therefore, he cannot be transferred to Civil Police in normal course. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any merit in the present case. The impugned order does not suffer from any error. The writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 11. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any merit in the present case. The impugned order does not suffer from any error. The writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 11. In result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.