Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 25. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been transferred from Gautam Budh Nagar to Mau. It has come on record that from the district Gautam Budh Nagar only six transfers have been made out of more than 2000 police officers of sub-ordinate rank posted in the district. Thus, the number of officers transferred out of the district is negligible and on its basis it cannot be even imagined that any discrimination in the matter of transfer has been practised on the basis of caste. 26. In the first supplementary affidavit a completely vague averment has been made that from the Meerut Zone about 400 Police Officers have been transferred in September, 2009 and approximately all of them belong to a particular community. In the second supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that approximately 250 Police Officers of a particular community are transferred from Meerut Zone in September, 2009. These two averments are contradictory to each other and cannot be reconciled. Further, as per the averments made in the second supplementary affidavit, the total number of police officers posted in a particular district and the number of police officers transferred is as under: District Total number of Police Officers Number of Police Officers of a particular community Number of transferred Police Officers of particular community Meerut 1500 22% i.e. 330 65 Saharanpur 1275 20% i.e. 255 60 Baghpt 360 32% i.e. 115 24 27. The number of officers so transferred appears to be quite insignificant looking to the number of officers posted in each district. 28. The learned Standing Counsel in this regard rightly submits that the process of transfer is not complete and the possibility of transfer of others officers which may include those of other community cannot be ruled out. In such a situation, in the absence of a clear cut averment as to why the department, rather the high level committee i.e. Police Establishment Board, would choose and transfer the police personnels of a particular community alone, the contention that the transfers are in colourable exercise of power is general in nature and too remote to be accepted. 29. Apart from the above, Police Force is a disciplined force established for the purpose of maintaining law and order and for investigation of crimes. Therefore, in order to maintain strict discipline, sometimes whole sole transfers are necessary in administrative exigencies. It is a common phenomena that in such circumstances a whole Battalion or a Brigade or a Regiment is transferred, which may include generally Constables/Sepoys of a particular caste. In Army particularly there are specific Regiments for Jats, Gorakhas and Sikhs etc. Thus, where the Regiment as a whole is transferred it would result in the transfer of persons of particular community alone but such a transfer cannot be faulted on account of arbitrariness or discrimination. Muzaffar Nagar 1250 25% i.e. 312 59 30. Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision reported in
3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief of Army Staff and others 1017 2003(1) UPLBEC 636 Bishan Pal Malik and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in support of the contention that the transfer on caste basis is a colourable exercise of power. In the aforesaid case, though the transfers were said to have been made in administrative exigencies, the Court found that the purpose was actually to flush out the officers belong to a particular caste due to out come of an action which involved the father of the Chief Minister. However, in the present case no such incident has been placed on record on the basis of which it can be imagined that the transfer of the police officers of a particular community is tainted with ulterior motive. 31. In the last, a faint submission has been made that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner is punitive in nature as is apparent from paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. 32. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph reveals that the petitioner had remained posted for 25 years in the adjoining districts of Bulandshahr and Ghaziabad. He was involved in case crime no.983 of 2008 u/s 379 IPC pertaining to demand of illegal gratification in respect whereof an enquiry was conducted and a censure entry was awarded to the petitioner. It is in view of above circumstances and the conduct of the petitioner that a recommendation for his transfer was made, which on being approved by the Board has been implemented. Neither the impugned order of transfer nor the above paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit is stigmatic or punitive in nature. It only narrates the basis of award of censure entry to the petitioner which may have formed one of the grounds for his transfer. Obviously, transfers have to be made on consideration of certain aspects and the past record of the petitioner as such becomes an essential aspect within the domain of administrative exigency. Therefore, even if such an entry has formed a part of decision making process it can not be said to be objectionable. It is a well recognised principle of law that the legality of the order has to be judged independently only on the basis of the reasons mentioned in the order itself and more reasons can not be supplemented by material other than the order itself. 33. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to exercise my extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution so as to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. There is no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitioner is permitted to join at the transferred place within a week. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.10.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60367 of 2005 No.63829833 Naik R.K. Mahapatra …Petitioner Versus Chief of Army Staff and others …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Colonel Ashok Kumar Sri Rohit Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K.C. Sinha, A.S.G.I.
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7 and 8: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 41 and 42: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 43: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 47 and 48: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 95 and 96:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 97 and 98:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Delete template?

Save as template?