Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1234 (ALL)

Ajit Singh v. State Of U. P.

2020-10-15

PRAKASH PADIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order of transfer dated 12.7.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 namely Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment/Karmik, U.P. Lucknow as well as the consequential relieving order dated 9.6.2020 passed by the respondent no.4 namely Reserve Inspector, Reserve Police Lines, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 12.7.2019 petitioner was transferred from Ghaziabad to Lucknow. It is further argued that for about one year he was not relieved ultimately, however, vide order dated 9.6.2020 petitioner was relieved from Ghaziabad. It is argued that implementation of the order of transfer dated 12.7.2019 is result of misuse of powers and totally non application of mind. According to him, an incumbent could be transferred keeping in mind the exigencies of service prevailing at the relevant time and not one year after the passing of a transfer order which itself was not implemented by the authorities. 4. Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the position that the respondents themselves did not implement the transfer order dated 12.7.2019 for a considerable period and it is now sought to be implemented by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No.6502 of 2020 (Dalbeer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) dated 2.9.2020. 6. This court is in complete agreement with the reasoning given in the order quoted above. 7. The transfer order passed one year back is now sought to be implemented in a mechanical manner which cannot be permitted. The same is accordingly quashed. 8. The writ petition is allowed, leaving it open to the respondents to pass a fresh order, if the situation so warrants.