Allahabad High Court
Shahnawaz Khan vs The State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 7 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:196549
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15093 of 2025
Shahnawaz Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Atipriya Gautam, Saundraya Giri, Shubham Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra (A/V 0367/12), holding brief of Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Himkanya Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.
3. This court entertained this petition on 14.10.2025 while directing the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions and thereafter the matter was fixed for today. Instructions have been supplied by Ms. Himkanya Srivastava, learned learned Standing Counsel, submits that she is well equipped with the instructions and the instructions are self-sufficient for disposal of the writ petition and she does not propose to file any further affidavit and the petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he was posted as Head Constable at Reserve Police, Lines Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. However, by virtue of the impugned order dated 18.09.2025, passed by the respondent no. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karmik, DGP, Headquarters, Police Bhawan, U.P., Lucknow and consequential order dated 20.09.2025 passed by respondent no. 4, Additional Superintendent of Police, Establishment, DGP Headquarters, Police Bhawan, U.P., Lucknow, the writ petitioner has been transferred from Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar to District Gorakhpur.
5. Questioning the transfer order and relieving order, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the transfer order has sought to argue that the transfer order insofar as it seeks to transfer the writ petitioner from Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar to District Gorakhpur cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the same is stigmatic in nature. Submission is that on the basis of the inputs provided by the Additional Director, U.P. Vigilance, Lucknow, the writ petitioner is being sought to be transferred. The argument is that although the transfer has been made on the recommendation of the Vigilance Department, it has been shown to have been passed on administrative grounds.
7. Contention is that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner by virtue of a first information report No. 0004 of 2024 dated 09.09.2024, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but the writ petitioner post enlargement on bail is already working there and mere pendency of the criminal case has been made the basis for transferring him, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Surat Pandey v. State of U.P. and others; 2009 (9) ADJ 258 (DB) and Om Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and others; 2008 (2) ADJ 680 (DB). Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner suffers from diseases and his parents are ailing from several diseases, in case, the writ petitioner stands transferred from Kanpur then it would be detrimental.
8. Learned Standing Council submits that whatever might be there happens to be inputs provided by the Additional Director of the Vigilance Department, dated 11.09.2025, according to which post enlargement on bail while working as Head Constable in the office of Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, is trying to influence the criminal proceedings that too creating pressure upon Smt. Indu Yadav and threatening the officials of the Vigilance Department who were instrumental in lodging of the first information report and a trap set up by them. Submission is that the transfer order cannot be said to be punitive, as there happens to be a consideration on the part of the authority transferring the writ petitioner on the basis of the inputs and further no prejudice and harm could be made, in case, the writ petitioner transferred to Gorakhpur. It is further submitted that though the father of the petitioner is stated to have been suffering from heart disease and the mother from backbone problem, and the petitioner is a blood cancer patient, but there happens to be better medical facility in Gorakhpur as there, AIIMS has been established.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner while posted as Head Constable at Reserve Police Lines Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, was subjected to a criminal proceeding while lodging of the First Information Report under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was arrested and post enlargement on bail, he was accorded joining. Thereafter on the basis of the inputs provided by the Vigilance Department, the writ petitioner has been transferred from Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar to District Gorakhpur with an allegation that the writ petitioner is threatening and influencing the investigation in the criminal proceedings. Though the contention of the counsel for the writ petitioner is that the same is stigmatic and punitive in nature as the transfer order has been passed on the basis of inputs provided by Vigilance Department however looking into the overall fact situation and bearing in mind the allegation that there happens to be an input provided on 11.09.2025 by the Additional Director Vigilance that the writ petitioner while being posted in Kanpur Nagar Commissionerate is influencing the proceedings and also administrating threat upon Smt. Indu Yadav thus the order impugned transferring the writ petitioner cannot be said to be colourable exercise of power of law. As a matter of fact, it is always open for the competent authority to transfer a person as he is the best Judge in that regard. This Court is not required to assess the consideration which weighed with the authorities while transferring the writ petitioner in the wake of the said allegations and the pendency of the criminal case in this regard. Moreover, the Court finds that in case, the writ petitioner suffers from diseases and his parents are ailing then there are equal and better facilities in Gorakhpur in that regard.
11. Nonetheless, it is also not the case of the petitioner that he has been transferred by an authority who is not competent to transfer him. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and situation, the Court does not find any error in the order dated 18.09.2025 transferring the writ petitioner from Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar to District Gorakhpur.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
13. As regard, the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner for being accorded joining in a nearby place to Kanpur Nagar and it is always open for the writ petitioner to raise his claim.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 7, 2025
A. Prajapati
