Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.S.I. (M) GYAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.S.I. (M) Gyan Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 46942 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14918 (31 August 2006)

 

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. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46942 of 2006

A.S.I (M) Gyan Singh

Vs.

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has been transferred from Firozabad to P.A.C. vide order dated 15.06.2006 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) Police Headquarter U.P. Allahabad.

Brief background of the case is that after completing 12 years of service in Agra Range, petitioner was transferred to Kanpur Range vide order dated 31.05.2006 issued by Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone Kanpur. Petitioner was relieved and thereafter by the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range on 19.06.2006 petitioner was sought to be placed at Kanpur city. On account of order dated 15.06.2006 petitioner has been sought to be placed at P.A.C. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Contention of the petitioner is that on 31.05.2006 he was transferred from one Range to another Range and was accorded placement on 19.06.2006 at Kanpur Nagar then in this background transfer order 15.06.2006 become redundant and otiose and cannot be implemented and given effect to, as such same is liable to be quashed.

On presentation of present writ petition before this Court, learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain necessary instructions in the matter. Today, necessary instructions have been obtained and on the basis of the same it has been contended that as per policy decision taken by the U.P. Police Headquarter dated 16.11.1989 ministerial staff of police establishment in entire carrier of service for 10 years will have to function in non-district area and same would be in phases. The first phase would be of four years and second and third phases of 3, 3 years respectively. It has been mentioned that petitioner has been posted in district cadre since 1989 and till date has not completed four years and for the said purposes petitioner has been transferred.

On this instructions being received, it is clear that as per policy decision petitioner will necessarily have to be accorded placement in non-district branch. Said principle is applicable to each and ever members of ministerial staff. Merely because order has been passed according placement to the petitioner at Kanpur Nagar within the Range same will not effect and wipe out the order passed by D.I.G. (Establishment)  

This Court in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44671 of 2006 (Vinod Kumar Yadav Versus State of U.P. & others) has taken the view that Deputy Inspector General of Police Headquarter exercises jurisdiction over the entire State of Uttar Pradesh, accordingly his range of jurisdiction is the entire State of Uttar Pradesh. Relevant extract of the judgment is being quoted below:

"The answer given by the Division Bench of this Court is clear and explicit that under Regulation 520. The Deputy Inspector General of Police posted at the Police Headquarter exercises jurisdiction over the entire State of Uttar Pradesh, accordingly his range of jurisdiction is the entire State of Uttar Pradesh.

Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that in case transfer was to be made out side the Zone then in that even in term of Regulation 1-A recommendation ought to have been therefrom Inspector General of Police who is much more superior in hierarchy qua Deputy Inspector General of Police and in case such practice is permitted same will amount to undermining the authority of Inspector General of Police and further once Zone has been constituted, then from Zone to Zone transfer, Deputy Inspector General of Police is not competent and only Director General-cum Inspector General of Police can pass order of transfer. It would be relevant to note that Additional Inspector General of Police in term of Government Order dated 08.07.1981 was Incharge of the Region and was entitled to give proper guidance to Deputy Inspector General of their Region. They were entitled to  transfer non-gazetted officers of the region under them and inter-region, transfer was to be done at Police Headquarter level as it was done in the past but recommendation was required. Posts of Additional Inspector General of Police has been raised to the rank and post  of Inspector General of Police and under Government Order dated 19.09.1987 functions of Inspector General of Police has clearly been provided for. After posts of Additional Inspector General of Police has been done away with and post of Inspector General of Police has been created under Government Order dated 05.05.1983 and 26.05.1984 respectively, and functions of Inspector General of Police has been determined vide Government Order dated 19.08.1987 then the provisions as contained under Regulation-1-A of Chapter I is rendered redundant and otiose and no reliance can be placed on the same and consequently there is no requirement of any recommendation by Inspector General of Police, the Zonal Head in the matter of transfer of outside Zone. As already indicated by this Court that Deputy Inspector General of Police posted at Police Headquarter exercise its jurisdiction over entire State of U.P.,the said  authority has full jurisdiction to transfer an incumbent any where in the State of U.P. Merely because Zone has been created same will not dilute the status of Deputy Inspector General of Police (H.Q) and take away his authority of transferring in the entire State of U.P.

At this juncture, the caution given by Hon'ble Apex Court qua transfer matters of members of Force has been given 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."

Consequently, order dated 15.06.2006 is strictly in consonance with the policy formulated on 16.11.1989 and as petitioner is holding transferable post, as such there is no scope of interference.

Consequently,  writ petition is dismissed.

31.08.2006

Dhruv


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.