Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 820 (JHR)

Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-20

R.MUKHOPADHYAY, VIRENDER SINGH

body2015
Order : Virender Singh, J. 1. Heard both the sides. 2. Mr.Sinha states that it appears that an impression was given to the learned writ Court that the appellant-writ petitioner ( hereinafter to be referred as 'petitioner') has stayed at a particular place i.e. Dhanbad only for a very longish period, i.e., eight years, whereas he was transferred from Special Branch (Police), Ranchi to Dhanbad in February, 2012 only. He submitted that no doubt petitioner had completed his tenure of three years after staying at a particular place and was due for transfer but request/representation made by him for posting at his home district, which stands rejected, was on the strength of Rule 778(iii) falling in Chapter-XXIV relating to transfer, leave and retirement as contained in Jharkhand Police Manual, wherein the principles regarding posting are to be observed carefully. 3. According to Mr.Sinha, in terms of Rule-778(iii) officers and men on the verge of retirement (two years or less to go) can be posted at their home districts on request. Consequently, petitioner also made a request for keeping him at his home town (Dhanbad) only as he is retiring very shortly within 5-6 months. The exact date of retirement as stated by Mr. Sinha is 31st January, 2016. 4. Mr.Sinha submitted that it appears that the case of petitioner has been singled out rejecting his representation, whereas in the case of one Shri Tribhuwan Prasad Sharma, who too was transferred from Ranchi to Palamau, his request for keeping him at his home district(Ranchi) has been acceded to by the respondent-State. Mr. Sinha fairly stated that no doubt in case of the aforesaid Tribhuwan Prasad Sharma, he was left with two months of his superannuation period only, whereas the petitioner at the time of rejection of his representation, was still left with 6-7 months of his retirement, but in terms of Rule 778(iii) of Jharkhand Police Manual, it would make no distinction. 5. Mr. Sinha, however, fairly states that he would instruct the petitioner to join new place of posting (Simdega) in terms of transfer order-impugned herein, in case the representation/ request made by him is given a re-visit by the concerned authority, considering the principle regarding posting carefully as enumerated in Rule 778(iii) of Jharkhand Police Manual. Mr. 5. Mr. Sinha, however, fairly states that he would instruct the petitioner to join new place of posting (Simdega) in terms of transfer order-impugned herein, in case the representation/ request made by him is given a re-visit by the concerned authority, considering the principle regarding posting carefully as enumerated in Rule 778(iii) of Jharkhand Police Manual. Mr. Sinha further requests that the representation made by petitioner calls for an early consideration, so that if he gets any favourable order, he would go back to his earlier place of posting i.e. Dhanbad. 6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in fact no effort was ever made from side of the State to misrepresent the Court to give an impression that petitioner has stayed at Dhanbad only for long eight years. In fact, what the State-respondent wanted to project before the writ Court was that petitioner has stayed in one zone only for a very long period. He stayed at Bokaro for a long five years and then transferred to Ranchi, stayed there for a considerable good period and thereafter transferred to Dhanbad. Mr. Ajit Kumar wants to impress upon the Court that petitioner, in fact, had stayed in three big cities falling in one zone only and was not now accepting his transfer to a place, which is not to his liking and that his writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Writ Court keeping all these facts and circumstances into consideration. Therefore, the instant appeal merits dismissal. 7. We have been informed by Mr. Ajit Kumar that the petitioner has not joined at new place of posting despite being relieved from the earlier place of posting. 8. We are conscious of the settled legal position that the Court should be very loath in interfering with the order of transfer, the transfer being exigency of service, except in exceptional circumstances. However, in the case on hand, what appears to the Court is that the representation/request of the petitioner has been rejected by the concerned authority in a very casual manner whereas the principle regarding posting are to be observed carefully. Carefully means application of mind and one can afford to be casual without applying mind. The distinction drawn by the respondent-State, as one finds from the counter filed by them, between the case of Tribhuwan Prasad Sharma and the petitioner is period of retirement only. Carefully means application of mind and one can afford to be casual without applying mind. The distinction drawn by the respondent-State, as one finds from the counter filed by them, between the case of Tribhuwan Prasad Sharma and the petitioner is period of retirement only. The gap of four months between two cases could not be the case of rejection of representation if there are no other factors staring at the petitioner. Therefore, the approach adopted by the concerned authority does not appear to be the correct approach in the present set of circumstances. 9. Viewed thus, the representation/request made by the petitioner for keeping him at Dhanbad requires to be reconsidered in totality of facts and circumstances of an individual case, but, within the parameters of Rule 778(iii) of Jharkhand Police Manual. 10. Resultantly, the order of rejection of the petitioner’s earlier representation (Annexure 4) of memorandum of appeal is hereby quashed qua the petitioner only directing the concerned authority to reconsider his case afresh. We, however, direct the petitioner to join at the transferred place of posting within 72 hours, i.e., 3 days only from today and the representation/ request of the petitioner shall be reconsidered thereafter within three weeks only so that a decision on the same is taken without any waste of time considering the very short period left with the petitioner to retire. 11. The net result is that the order of the learned Writ Court impugned through the medium of this Letters Patent Appeal is quashed is modified/altered in the aforesaid terms.