Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VISHWA NATH RAI versus STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vishwa Nath Rai v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others - WRIT - A No. 1565 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 181 (13 January 2005)

 

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

Court No. 9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1565 of 2005

Vishwanath Rai

versus

State of U.P and others

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner serving as Constable in Civil Police in the Traffic Branch has been transferred by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia,  to Armed Police by his order dated 14.12.2004.

The transfer order has been challenged on the ground that with  22 years of service in the police department,  out of which 17 years in traffic police, the petitioner could not have been transferred to the Armed Police except after following the provisions of Regulation 525 of Chapter-XXXIV of the Police Regulations. Regulation 525 is quoted as below:-

"The Constable of less than 2 years service may be transferred by the Superintendent of Police from the Armed Police to Civil Police or vice-versa. Foot Police Constable may be transferred to mounted police at their own request. Any Civil Police Constable of more than 2 and less than 10 years service may be transferred to the Armed Police and vice-versa by the S.P. For the period not exceeding 6 months in any one year. All armed police constables of over 21 years service and civil police constables of over 2 and under 10 years services may be transferred to the other branch of the force for any period with the permission of Deputy Inspector General. In all other cases, the transfer of the police officers from one branch of the force to another or from the police service of other provinces to the U.P. Police, requires the sanction of the Inspector General."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Dilip Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. & others 2003 (2) AWC 115 in submitting that where the Regulation 525 of the Police Regulations is not followed, and there is no material or reason for transfer  the transfer order is arbitrary as it violates the mandate of doctrine of fairness which is well recognised in the field of administrative law,  to ensure the rule of law.

A perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition shows that there were complaints against the petitioner. While accompanying  the Sub Inspector Sri

2

Gulab Chand Yada, the petitioner was found responsible for various facts of negligence in performance of his duties. In a complaint made by the Sabji, Phal Kalyan Samit, Ballia t against the petitioner for extracting money from the traders  it was stated that the petitioner  tears off their receipt,  after realisation the fine and pockets it. An enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ballia. In the enquiry report dated 12.10.2004, it was found that the petitioner had not deposited the chalans report of twenty vehicles. He used to detain vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act for several days to strike of deal  with the owners, he did not deposit a  number of receipts and the fines realised through such receipts. A recommendation was made that the petitioner should be transferred to the Armed Police. The petitioner was awarded a censure entry by the Superintendent of Police vide his order dated 18.11.2004 for failing to forward the chalans papers of the vehicles named in the entry and to forward them in the office of ARTO/Court. He was found to have released the vehicles after extracting bribe from the drivers. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this censure entry, which is still pending.

The facts in Dilip Kumar's case were entirely different. The batch of Constables in Civil Police appointed in the year 1993 were posted by Deputy Inspector General of Police in the year 1997 to the Armed Police to constitute a Special Task Force in the Allahabad. This Task Force had carried out various operations and these constables were promoted as Head Constables in Armed Police. They made a request on which a recommendation was made in view of good work performed by them in apprehending criminals. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Range had made strong recommendation in their favour to post them in Civil Police. The U.P. Public Service Tribunal had dismissed the writ petition directing the petitioners to make representations. The Division Bench after quoting Regulations 61, 65, 396 of the Police Regulations, relied upon Regulations 525 and held refusal  of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to transfer the petitioners to Civil Police was not in fair exercise of powers. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad did not give any good reasons in rejecting such request and the recommendations.

In the present case the petitioner was found to have committed serious acts of negligence,  and was also found to have extracting money from traders as a  Traffic Constable. There is no bar to transfer a Police Officer from Civil Police to Armed

3

Police and vice versa. Regulation 525 of the Police Regulations  is statutory in nature as Police Regulations have been made in exercise of powers of the Police Act and provides for such transfers, subject to the condition that Constables  over two years and less 10 years may be transferred to Civil Branch vice versa and permission of Inspector General is required to be taken.

This rule is applicable in a case where the transfers are made in ordinary course and not for any compelling administrative reason,  after an enquiry in which the police officer is found to be guilty. The permission of officers namely DIG and IG is required where transfers are made in ordinary course and not when they are to be made in administrative interest after an enquiry is made into the allegations against police officers. The regulation 525 of the Police Regulation in my opinion is regulatory in nature,   and that police officer does not have legally enforceable right, to challenge the transfer order on the ground that the permission of the DIG & IG as the case may be has not been taken. The Court is only required to find out  that the  power has been exercised fairly and for the purpose it has been entrusted upon the Superintendent of Police.

In the present case, the Superintendent of Police has not acted illegally, unfairly or  arbitrarily in transferring the petitioner to the Armed Police. The writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 13.1.2005

RKP/-


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.