JUDGMENT Subodh Abhyankar, J. - This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, Station House Officer, Police Station Itarsi District Hoshangabad against the order dated 21.3.2020 (Annexure P-1) as also the subsequent transfer order dated 22.5.2020. Vide order dated 21.3.2020 the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Station House Officer, Police Station Itarsi to Station House Officer, Police Station Panchmari and while the aforesaid order was pending adjudication in the present writ petition, the respondents have again passed the transfer order dated 22.5.2020 whereby the earlier transfer order dated 21.03.2020 has been modified and now the petitioner has been transferred from Hoshangabad to PTS Bhauri, District Bhopal. 2. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court and has submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in gross violation of the direction/guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 1 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that a police officer, in a field posting, must be posted at one place at least for two years, whereas in the present case the petitioner has joined as SHO at Police Station Itarsi District Hoshangabad only on 1.6.2019. Thus it is submitted that within nine months from the date of his joining the impugned order has been passed which has been subsequently amended vide order dated 22.5.2020 and the petitioner has been transferred from Hoshangabad to PTS Bhauri, District Bhopal. 3. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned for the respondents/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that in the memo of petition the petitioner has averred in para 5.4 that no case is pending against him and in fact no departmental enquiry has ever been initiated against him in his service life, however, the aforesaid fact has been misrepresented by the petitioner as against the petitioner as many as four departmental enquiries were initiated by the orders of the Superintendent of Police (Rail) where the petitioner was earlier posted and which bear registration number as 13/2014, 24/2014, 27/2014 and 28/2014. It is further stated that out of aforesaid enquiries, two enquiries i.e. 13/2014 and 27/2014 stand concluded with the imposition of punishment with the petitioner and other two enquiries i.e. 24/2014 and 28/2014 are still pending. The documents regarding the aforesaid enquiries are also placed on record as Annexure R-1. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the circular dated 15.10.2014 issued by the Police Headquarters, it is clearly provided that there would be a bar of the posting of an employee to the Station Houses if a departmental proceeding is pending against him. The aforesaid circular is also placed on record as Annexure R-3. It is further submitted that although the petitioner was initially transferred vide order dated 21.3.2020, however, subsequently on account of the aforesaid circular dated 15.10.2014 the petitioner's posting as SHO, Panchmari has also been cancelled and now he has been transferred to PTS Bhauri District Bhopal, which is in accordance with law and in line with the aforesaid circular dated 15.10.2014. Thus it is submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Prakash Singh(supra) is not applicable in the present case and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 Dinesh Singh Chauhan who is posted on the post of the petitioner, has also filed reply and has reiterated the stand of the State Government. Additionally, Shri Verma has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanugo Filling Station Vs. State Bank of India,2013 SCCOnlineMP 6528 and in the case of Nikita Wilson Vs. State of MP, decided on 27.8.2019 in WP No.10873/2019, to submit that in case the factual material facts are suppressed, then the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of any relief. Thus it is submitted that the petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed. 6. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra) is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Verma that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same would not be applicable, as the circular of the Government dated 15.10.2014 issued by the DGP Bhopal informing that in case any departmental enquiry is pending against any police official, he shall not be assigned any executive duties. 7. 7. In rebuttal to the returns filed by the respondents, the petitioner has also filed a rejoinder wherein a detailed explanation regarding the various departmental enquiries initiated against the petitioner has been given. 8. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in none of the cases initiated against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, there was any allegation of any moral turpitude or any serious charge as envisaged in the circular dated 15.10.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the aforesaid circular which provides that those police personnel have been excluded for field posting against whom charges of moral turpitude, corruption, violence and illegal demand are pending. 9. It is further submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, none of the aforesaid four cases of the departmental enquiries such charges were levelled against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the charges which were levelled against the petitioner in those enquiries were trivial in nature having nothing to do with the moral turpitude, corruption, violence, illegal demand etc. Thus it is submitted that the aforesaid circular is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From the record this Court finds that the petitioner in para 5.4 of the writ petition the petitioner has made the following averment, which reads as under:- "5.4 That, the entire service career of petitioner, right from the initial date of appointment, is clean and unblemished. At no point of time, petitioner has ever been served with any charge-sheet or departmental inquiry ever initiated against him. All the ACRs of petitioner are upto the mark. In the last 37 years of service, petitioner has been performing his duties, functions and responsibilities to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities & also to the general public. Due to the excellent performance of petitioner, he has been awarded and rewarded in many occasions and also appreciated by higher authorities. (emphasis supplied) 12. So far as the rejoinder of the petitioner is concerned regarding the aforesaid objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts regarding the initiation of departmental enquiry, the petitioner has pleaded in the following manner:- "6. (emphasis supplied) 12. So far as the rejoinder of the petitioner is concerned regarding the aforesaid objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts regarding the initiation of departmental enquiry, the petitioner has pleaded in the following manner:- "6. That, petitioner further submits that, so far as departmental enquiries are concern, all the departmental have been completed and two departmental enquiries are pending before the competent authority for final order & from last two years no order has been passed by the competent authority. Petitioner already submitted brief in his defense. In all the departmental enquiries no charges were related to corruption & moral turpitude. As per Annexure R/3 those police personnel have been excluded for field posting against whom charges of moral turpitude, corruption, violence & illegal demand is pending. But, no such charge/s is/are alleged in any of the charge sheets. In the concluded departmental proceedings of long antiquity petitioner was exonerated from all the charges in one & in another a minor punishment was imposed. Such concluded departmental proceedings have no bearing on his present posting. The two pending proceedings also relate to incidents of 2010 and upon completion of hearing in them defense briefs were submitted and these proceedings final decision before the competent authority since last two years. 7. That, both the pending proceedings relate to the incidents of the year 2010 when petitioner was posted as SHO, GRP Gwalior (NG) & all the alleged incidents petitioner was not directly involved & entire action has been taken due to the lapses & negligence on the part of the lower staff of the Police Station. 8. That, during 2009-2018 petitioner was posted in Police station GRP which is an operational field duty, during the pendency of the departmental enquiries & also after the alleged incidents." This Court also finds in the entire rejoinder the petitioner has not averred even in the slightest manner as to what prompted him to submit before this Court in para 5.4 of the writ petition that no departmental enquiry whatsoever has ever been initiated against him, which in the considered opinion of this Court was a false statement and flies in the face of this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court it is one thing to say that there are no departmental enquiries initiated against the petitioner and quite another thing to say that they are not material. Thus, having failed to mention the true facts in the earlier occasion amounts to willful misrepresentation, the petitioner ought to have come up with an explanation as to why the aforesaid averments in para 5.4 were made but there is also no sense of responsibility on the part of the petitioner. In fact the petitioner has tried to justify his action by saying that those enquiries were not material in nature as it fell outside the scope of the circular dated 15.10.2014. Although this Court is tempted to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on perusal of the para 5.4 of the petition and the subsequent rejoinder of the petitioner in this behalf, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, who is claiming himself to be a responsible police officer, was expected to come before this Court with clean hands and suppression of such facts regarding departmental enquiries cannot be condoned specially when it has come from none other than a police officer of the State. 13. As a result, in view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No cost.