Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 35 (UTT)

BARINDERJIT SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2021-01-12

MANOJ K.TIWARI, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT The petitioner, Shri Barinderjit Singh, IPS, has filed the present writ petition before this Court inter alia on the ground that, by the order dated 09.07.2020, he was transferred from the post of Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar district, to the post of Commandant, IRB-1, Bailparao, Ramnagar, Nainital district. The said transfer was malafide. Moreover, despite the fact that he has filed his representations against the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 alleging certain inappropriate actions on their behalf, the said representations have gone unheard. According to the petitioner, he had filed a representation on 08.07.2020 before the Director General of Police, State of Uttarakhand. However, even the said representation has not invoked any response. 2. The petitioner, party-in-person, has joined the Court through Video Conferencing. He has informed the Court that he is no longer interested in challenging the transfer order dated 09.07.2020, as much water has flown, and he has already joined his new place of posting. However, he further submits that since his previous representations have fallen on deaf ears, the Home Secretary, State of Uttarakhand should be directed to accept a new representation to be submitted by him; the Home Secretary should be directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in order to air his grievances. He further seeks the liberty that in case any order is passed by the Home Secretary, which may adversely affect his rights and interests, he be permitted to challenge the same before this Court. 3. On the other hand, Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, submits that even the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 too should be granted an opportunity of personal hearing by the Home Secretary while dealing with the newly submitted representation presented by the petitioner. 4. It is, indeed, trite to state that, in case an employee is aggrieved by the functioning of his superior officers, he must be heard, and his grievances must be addressed to. For, in case the representation is ignored, it not just creates a heartburning for the person who has filed the representation, but more so demoralises the other members of the force. Despite the fact that a representation was filed by the petitioner on 08.07.2020 before the Director General of Police, State of Uttarakhand, it has gone unheeded so far. For, in case the representation is ignored, it not just creates a heartburning for the person who has filed the representation, but more so demoralises the other members of the force. Despite the fact that a representation was filed by the petitioner on 08.07.2020 before the Director General of Police, State of Uttarakhand, it has gone unheeded so far. However, as circumstances have changed, and the petitioner has already joined his new place of posting, this Court permits the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Home Secretary, State of Uttarakhand in order to voice his grievances. 5. The Home Secretary, State of Uttarakhand is directed to not only consider the fresh representation so presented by the petitioner, but also to give an opportunity of personal hearing both to the petitioner and to the respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The Home Secretary is further directed to decide the representation within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. He is further directed to pass a reasoned order on the representation so submitted by the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is granted the liberty to challenge any order passed by the Home Secretary in case the said order adversely affects his rights and interests. 6. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.