Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI,J. Service Single No. - 2289 of 2011 Pankaj Kumar and others ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secy. In The Dept.Home ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: A.P.Singh Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. U.P. (Civil Police and Head Constable Service rules 2008)-Rule 26 readwith Regulation 520 Police Regulationtransfer order challenged on ground in view of judgment 29.05.10 in W.P. No. 3838 of 2010 in which Constitution of Regulation Police Establishment Board itself-illegal hence as approval given by Regional Police Board without jurisdiction-held-in view of Full Bench decision of Vinod Kumar case- Constitution of Regional Police Board found proper-as such transfer order can not be bad-second ground of attack after existence of Rule 2008 , G.O. 11.07.86 lost its significance also misconceived as the Rule does not cover the field of transfer as such the G.O. still applicable. Held: Para 11 & 15 So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Government Order dated 11.7.1986 stands superseded after coming into force Rules 2008, is concerned, it is to be noted that the preamble of Rules 2008 recites that the said rules have been framed to regulate the selections, promotions, appointments, determination of seniority and confirmation etc. of the Constables and Head Constables of civil police in the police force. A reading of these rules indicates that they do not deal with the transfer of police personnel. It is also to be seen that as per Rule 26 of the said Rules 2008, the matters which are not covered under these rules shall be governed by the rules, regulations and the orders applicable generally to Government servants. The Government Order dated 11.7.1986 specifically deals with the transfer of police personnel as such suffice is to mention that the said Government Order dated 11.7.1986 is duly applicable and enforceable in the present case. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that constitution of Regional Police Establishment Boards can not be said to be wrong. In the present case, the transfer order of the petitioners has been passed after approval of the Regional Police Establishment Board as such it can not be said to be bad in the eyes of law. Case law discussed: (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2060; 2011 (2) ADJ 177 (DB); Writ Petition No. 1781 (S/S) of 2011 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. ) 1. Notice on behalf of the opposite parties has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 17.4.2011 including the decision/order/approval of the Regional Police Establishment Board dated 13.4.2011 by which the petitioners no. 1 to 5 have been transferred from Lucknow to
1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. State of U.P. 447 Raibareli and the petitioner no. 6 has been transferred from Lucknow to Lakhimpur Kheri, on the ground that they are posted in the adjoining district to the home district which is not permissible as per the Government Order dated 11.7.1986. Challenge has also been made to the Government Order dated 11.7.1986. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after coming into force the U.P. (Civil Police) Constables and Head Constables Service Rules 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2008') notified by the notification dated 2.12.2008, the Government Order dated 11.7.1986 has been superseded. Moreover, in view of Rule 26 of the Rules 2008, the matters not specifically covered by these rules shall be governed by the rules, regulations and the Orders applicable generally to Government servants serving in connection with affairs of the State. 3. Contention is that Rule 2008 does not prohibit the posting of police personnel in the home district or the adjoining district to the home district and, therefore, there can not be any embargo on the posting of the police personnel in the home district or districts adjoining to the home districts. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in fact, Regulation 520 of the Police Regulation provides that the transfers which result in officers being stationed far from their homes should be avoided as much as possible, meaning thereby that the police personnel shall be posted near to the home districts. Since Regulation 520 of the Police Regulations provided that transfers which result in officers being stationed far from their homes as far as possible should be avoided, therefore, the Government Order dated 11.7.1986 which is contrary to the Police Regulations is wrong and can not be allowed to deal with the transfers of the police personnel. Moreover, the opposite parties on the one hand vide circular dated 21.3.2011 has exempted all those police personnel posted in the V.I.P. duties from the general transfers and on the other hand have made large scale transfers on the basis of the Government Order dated 11.7.1986 which amounts to discrimination. 5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & another Vs. State of U.P. & others (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2060, while considering the constitution of the Police Establishment Board vide notification dated 12.3.2008 has observed that Rule 26 of Rules 2008, makes applicable the rules pertaining to the Government servants i.e. the persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State and as Regulation 520 deals with the transfers of police personnel, who are also a part of the public services of the State, therefore, insofar as the police personnel are concerned, the regulation pertaining to the transfers would continue to apply to them. In this regard he has relied on para 20 of the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar (Supra). "20. In our opinion, therefore, considering the fact that the Rule 26 of the Rules, 2008 makes applicable the rules pertaining to the Government servants, i.e. persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, and as Regulation 520 deals with the transfers of the police personnel, who are
Page 1 and 2:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 3 and 4:
1 All] Siya Ram V. District Judge (
Page 5 and 6:
1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14: 1 All] Gopal Singh Visharad V. Jaho
Page 23 and 24: 1 All] Amanattullah and others V. A
Page 29 and 30: 1 All] Anis Ahmad @ Chand Babu V. S
Page 31 and 32: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 33 and 34: 1 All] Ram Ujagar and another V. Sm
Page 35 and 36: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 37 and 38: 1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central
Page 39 and 40: 1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.
Page 45 and 46: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 47 and 48: 1 All] Ram Mohan Dayal V. State of
Page 49 and 50: 1 All] Jile Singh V. State of U.P.
Page 51 and 52: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 53 and 54: 1 All] Union of India and others V.
Page 55 and 56: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 57 and 58: 1 All] Rama Shanker Shukla V. Zila
Page 59 and 60: 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissi
Page 61 and 62: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 63: 1 All Ghaziabad Development Authori
Page 67 and 68: 1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. St
Page 73 and 74: 1 All Dev Sharan Yadav V. State of
Page 75 and 76: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 77 and 78: 1 All Abdul Aziz Ansari V. State of
Page 79 and 80: 1 All Shiv Om and others V. Distric
Page 81 and 82: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 83 and 84: 1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V.
Page 85 and 86: 1 All Nagina and others V. State of
Page 87 and 88: 1 All Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu V
Page 93 and 94: 1 All Naushad Alam V. State of U.P.
Page 103 and 104: 1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkar
Page 111 and 112: 1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 113 and 114: 1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
Page 115 and 116:
1 All Vikas Singh and others V. Sta
show all

Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?