High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Constable 485 Cp Ram Vir Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 27681 of 2007  RD-AH 12078 (17 July 2007)
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27681 of 2007
Constable 485 C.P. Ram Vir Singh
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court, questioning the validity of transfer order dated 10.06.2007 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, pursuant to order dated 09.06.2007 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra.
Brief background of the case is that petitioner had been allotted quarter No. 6 at P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh. It has been contended that on 23.05.2007 Constable Bhagwan Singh, started beating petitioner's wife and his children, in regard to which complaint was lodged. Petitioner has contended that in the said incident, his wife and children had sustained injuries, but petitioner has been transferred and constable Bhagwan Singh has not been transferred, and thus, he has been meted with arbitrary treatment. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Short counter affidavit has been filed, and therein it has been contended that on 26.05.2007 complaint was lodged by Smt. Bhawna Devi, complaining therein that wife of petitioner and her sons misbehaved with her and her family members on 23.05.2007. In the said matter enquiry was got conducted, and as per short counter affidavit, allegations and counter allegations of marpit and misbehavior were levelled qua each other. In this background, Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, wrote letter on 31.05.2007 to Deputy Inspector General of Police, recommending transfer of both the incumbents, so that atmosphere in police force remain peaceful. On the said recommendation, Deputy Inspector General of Police passed order of transfer and, both the petitioner as well as constable Bhagwan Singh have been transferred from Aligarh.
Facts of the present case clearly establish that keeping in view the allegations and counter allegations from both sides, and in order to achieve better and peaceful atmosphere in police force, impugned decision has been taken, by transferring one of them to Mainpuri and the other to Etah. Such an exercise cannot be said to be arbitrary exercise of power of transfer. Petitioner holds transferable post and the authority who has passed order of transfer, is competent to pass such order, and coupled with this there is no violation of any statutory Rules or Regulation is reported or raised, as such no error can be found in the transfer order.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1995 (71) FLR 1011 (SC) held that a Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other.
In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in 2004 (101) FLR 586 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires.
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another reported in [(2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 245 has taken the view that transfer order should not be interfered unless same is in violation of statutory provisions or order passed is malafide.
The caution has been given by Hon'ble Apex Court qua transfer matters of members of Force in the case of Major General, J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in 2005(107) FLR 37 in following terms.
" It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in case of civilian employees or those who are working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of interference by Courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed force should posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless and exceptionally strong case is made out no interference should be made."
At this juncture the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others reported in [(2005) 8 SCC 760] qua malafides is also being looked into which is as follows:
"21. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its power. While the indirect motive or purpose, or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficult is not lessended when one has to establish that a person apparently acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting malafides in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the law that mala fide in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. (S Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab) reported in [(1964) 4 SCR 733 or AIR 1964 SC 72] It cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. As noted by this Court in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of T.N reported in [(1974) 4 SCC 3 or AIR 1974 SC 555] courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before them by a party, particularly when the imputations are gave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. (See Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in [(2003) 4 SCC 579.
22. As observed by this Court in Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [(1976) 1 SCC 800] mala fides is the last refuge of a losing litigant."
On the touchstone of the judgments cited above, relief claimed by petitioner based on the facts and circumstances involved in the present case is misconceived, hence the same cannot be accorded. Writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.