Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAI SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijai Singh v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 37630 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 9722 (21 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

The petitioner was appointed as a Sub Inspector in the Civil Police in the year 1973-74. He is aggrieved by an order dated 16.8.2000 passed by Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Civil Police to Special Investigation Branch Agriculture Cell, Lucknow.

I have heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected in the Civil Police and could not have been transferred or even sent on deputation to the Special Investigation Branch Agriculture Cell without his consent. In the alternative it has been submitted that in terms of the Government Order dated 31.12.1999 a Sub Inspector of Inspector of Civil Police, who has been sent to the Special Investigation Branch, shall not be retained for more than five years unless the said person gives his consent for being retained for a period of over five years. The submission is that the petitioner has never given his consent for being transferred to the Special Investigation Branch Agriculture Cell and as such the question of giving consent for being retained there beyond the period of five years does not arise.

Since the petitioner was transferred to the Special Investigation Branch Agriculture Cell in the year 2000 and now he has already served there for more than seven years, I am not going to the question as to whether the initial transfer of the petitioner was proper or not. However, in view of the Government Order dated 31.12.1999 it is clear that the petitioner could not have been retained in the Special Investigation Branch for a period beyond five years, which has already expired in the case of the petitioner, as such the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, Respondent no.2 is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after considering the  Government Order dated 31.12.1999 for placing the petitioner in the Civil Police. Such order shall be passed by the Respondent no.2 within a period of one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order  before him.

This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.

dt. 21.5.2007

dps

w.p. 37630 of 2000


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.