Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 24.06.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Others on 8 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:21811
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.105 of 2025
Reserved on: 24.06.2025
.
Date of Decision: 08.07.2025
__________________________________________________________
Anil Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and Others ....Respondents
__________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.
Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma,
Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent
No.3.
__________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge:
Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Sub-
Divisional Police Officer, Baijnath, District kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is
aggrieved of order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) whereby he has
been transferred from afore station to Police Training College, Daroh,
District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Sharma,
learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned
counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order of the
petitioner, issued in violation of the transfer policy, deserves to be
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2025:HHC:21811
quashed and set-aside. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel
representing the petitioner stated that impugned transfer of the
.
petitioner has been effected on the basis of political interference and as
such, needs to be interfered. He submitted that since petitioner ordered
to issue Challan against son of M.L.A. of the area concerned, competent
authority on the basis of recommendations made by M.L.A. of the area
concerned, proceeded to pass impugned transfer order. While making
this Court Peruse Section 12 of Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 (for
short, 'the Act'), Mr. Sharma submitted that ordinarily the tenure of Sub-
Divisional Police Officer (for short, 'SDPO') is of two years and if an
SDPO is to be transferred before expiry of two years, then reasons are
to be recorded in writing in terms of provisions of the said Act, however,
impugned transfer order nowhere suggests compliance of aforesaid
procedure. He further submitted that as per Section 43 of the Act,
administration of the Police throughout the State shall vest in the Director
General of Police and State Government has no role whatsoever in the
exercise of administrative power by Director General of Police, who is
the only competent authority to issue transfer order of a Police Officer.
While referring to Section 56 of the Act, Mr. Sharma submitted that
otherwise also, transfer of the Police Officer can only be recommended
by Police Establishment Committee headed by Director General of
Police comprising of four senior police officers, not below rank of
Inspector General of Police, nominated by the Director General of Police,
2025:HHC:21811
but in the instant case, procedure as laid down in Sections 12 and 56 of
the Act has not been followed, rather merely on the dictate of a political
.
person, respondents/State has proceeded to transfer the petitioner, who
had yet not completed minimum tenure of two years at the present place
of posting.
3. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
Advocate General while justifying the impugned action of respondents
vehemently argued that there is nothing to suggest that impugned
transfer order has been passed on the recommendations of any political
person, as alleged. He further submitted that there is nothing on record
to suggest that impugned transfer of the petitioner has been effected on
account of the fact that petitioner herein had some altercation with the
son of M.L.A. of the area concerned, rather, impugned transfer has been
ordered on administrative grounds.
4. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing private-
respondent No.3, while adopting the arguments raised by learned
Additional Advocate General, further submitted that petition at hand
otherwise deserves outright dismissal for the reason that petitioner has
not approached this Court with clean hands, rather, has attempted to
misstate the facts. While making this Court peruse Para 9 of the petition,
Mr. Thakur submitted that petitioner wrongly submitted before this Court
that private-respondent had not joined as Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Baijnath. He submitted that on account of concealment of afore relevant
2025:HHC:21811
fact, petitioner succeeded in obtaining order dated 03.01.2025, whereby
direction was issued to respondents to permit petitioner to continue to
.
serve at Baijnath with further direction to private-respondent No.3 to
serve at the station where he was posted, before issuance of impugned
transfer order.
5. Before ascertaining correctness of rival submissions made
by learned counsel representing the parties, it is apt to take note of the
fact that this Court having taken note of non-compliance of provisions
contained in Sections 12 and 56 of the Act, had called upon learned
Additional Advocate General to produce record of transfer, especially
proposal, on the basis of which petitioner herein was ordered to be
transferred.
6. Pursuant to order dated 03.06.2025, learned Additional
Advocate General made available record of transfer, which Court after its
perusal, returned to the Officer concerned. Careful perusal of record
made available to this Court nowhere suggests compliance of Sections
12 and 56 of the Act. Record made available to this Court revealed that
pursuant to approval given by the Hon'ble Governor of Himachal
Pradesh, Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide
notification dated 24.12.2024, ordered transfer and posting of 17 Police
Officers, including petitioner, whose name figures at Sr. No.8. Perusal of
aforesaid notification, which has been otherwise placed on record as
Annexure P-9, nowhere suggests that same has been issued on the
2025:HHC:21811
recommendations made by Director General of Police, who otherwise in
terms of recommendations, if any, made by Police Establishment
.
Committee, ought to have ordered transfer of Police Officers, that too, in
situations, as provided under Clause 12 of the Act by passing speaking
order. Though this Court having perused record as well as other material
adduced on record is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned
Additional Advocate General, that impugned transfer of the petitioner is
not on the basis of political interference, as alleged by the petitioner, but
certainly transfer of the petitioner appears to have been made in violation
of Sections 12 and 56 of the Act. At this stage, it would be apt to take
note of Sections 12 and 56 of the Act, which read as under:
"12. Tenure of office of police functionaries.- An Officer posted as
Station House Officer or as Sub-Divisional Police Officer or as
Superintendent of Police of a District shall normally have a minimum
tenure of two years and a maximum tenure of three years, unless
promoted to a higher post earlier:
Provided that an officer may be retained for upto six months
after expiry of his tenure, in the public interest for reasons to be
recorded in writing:
Provided further that any such officer may be removed from his
post before the expiry of the minimum tenure of two years by the
authority competent to remove him for reasons to be recorded in
writing, consequent upon-
(i) filing of a charge sheet in a criminal case in a Court of law; or
(ii) serving of a charge-sheet for a major penalty under the
relevant disciplinary rules; or
(iii) suspension from service in accordance with the provisions
of the relevant disciplinary rules; or
(iv) reversion to a lower post for administrative reasons; or
2025:HHC:21811
(v) incapacitation by physical or mental illness or otherwise
becoming unable to discharge his functions and duties; or
(vi) administrative exigencies, in the larger public interest.
.
56. Police Establishment Committees.- (1) There shall be a State
Police Establishment Committee headed by the Director-General of
Police and comprising four senior police officers not below rank of
Inspector General of Police, nominated by the Director General of
Police. The State Police Establishment Committee shall be responsible
to-
(i) approve all postings and transfers of Non-Gazetted Police
Officers between the various wings of the police organization,
and deputation outside the organisation and for inter-range
transfers in all the wings with the prior approval of the
Government in accordance with directions in this regard;
(ii) approve the issue of general policy directions and Standing
Orders to the Deputy Inspector-General and District
Superintendent of Police on transfers within their jurisdiction;
(iii) hear and dispose off representations against transfer orders
issued by authorities subordinate to the Director-General of
Police;
(iv) recommend proposals for postings and transfers of
Gazetted Police Officers to the State Government subject to
provisions of this Act and relevant rules; and
(v) make recommendations to the State Government with
regard to representations in service matters from Gazetted
Police Officers:
Provided that the Director-General of Police may, with the
previous approval of the State Government, constitute an
Establishment Committee for any specific unit within the Police
Organisation for making postings and transfers of Non-Gazetted Police
Officers within such unit.
7. Section 12, as reproduced hereinabove, clearly reveals that
an Officer posted as Station House Officer or as Sub-Divisional Police
Officer or as Superintendent of Police of a District shall normally have a
2025:HHC:21811
minimum tenure of two years and a maximum tenure of three years,
unless promoted to a higher post. Proviso 2 to aforesaid provision
.
though empowers competent authority to remove afore officers from their
post before the expiry of minimum tenure of two years, but that too for
the reasons/situation given in the aforesaid provision itself. Police
Officer, as detailed hereinabove, can be removed/transferred before the
expiry of minimum tenure of two years in the event of filing of a charge-
sheet in a criminal case in a Court of law; or serving of a charge-sheet
for a major penalty under the relevant disciplinary rules; or suspension
from service in accordance with the provisions of the relevant disciplinary
rules; or reversion to a lower post for administrative reasons; or
incapacitation by physical or mental illness or otherwise becoming
unable to discharge his functions and duties and lastly on account of
administrative exigencies, in the larger public interest.
8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, none of the
situation/reasons, as have been detailed in Section 12 of the Act, existed
in the case of the petitioner. Though, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
Advocate General, attempted to argue that transfer of the petitioner
came to be effected on administrative grounds, but he was unable to
spell out administrative exigency, if any. Even if aforesaid submission
made by learned Additional Advocate General is presumed to be correct,
he was unable to explain that how without there being recommendations
made by Police Establishment Committee headed by Director General of
2025:HHC:21811
Police, Police officials, including petitioner, could have been transferred.
Section 56 of the Act, if read in its entirety, clearly reveals that there shall
.
be a State Police Establishment Committee headed by the Director-
General of Police, which shall recommend proposal for posting and
transfer of Gazetted Police Officer of the State Government, subject to
provisions of the Act and relevant rules.
9. Record made available to this Court nowhere suggests that
recommendations, if any, were ever made by Police Establishment
Committee headed by Director General of Police. If it is so, impugned
transfer order, claimed to have been issued on administrative grounds, is
otherwise not tenable. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Prakash
Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 1,
issued detailed directions based principally on recommendations of
National Police Commission and other commissions and committees set
up thereafter in respect of Police reforms. Since the misuse and abuse of
Police has reduced it to the status of a mere tool in the hands of
unscrupulous masters and in the process, it has caused serious
violations of the rights of the people, Hon'ble Apex Court in afore
judgment observed that there is immediate need to redefine the scope
and functions of Police, and provide for its accountability to the law of the
land, and implement the core recommendations of the Commission.
Relevant Para of afore judgment, is reproduced herein-below, which
reads as under:
2025:HHC:21811
"31. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have
perused the various reports. In discharge of our constitutional duties
and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position, we issue the
.
following directions to the Central Government, State Governments and
Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate
legislations :
State Security Commission
(1) The State Governments are directed to constitute a State
Security Commission in every State to ensure that the State
Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or
pressure on the State police and for laying down the broad
policy guidelines so that the State police always acts
according to the laws of the land and the Constitution of the
country. This watchdog body shall be headed by the Chief
Minister or Home Minister as Chairman and have the DGP of
the State as its ex-officio Secretary. The other members of the
Commission shall be chosen in such a manner that it is able
to function independent of Government control. For this
purpose, the State may choose any of the models
recommended by the National Human Rights Commission,
the Ribeiro Committee or the Sorabjee Committee, which are
as under:
NHRC Ribeiro Committee Sorabjee
Committee
1. Chief Minister/ HM as 1. Minister i/c Police as 1. Minister i/c
Chairman. Chairman. Police (ex-
officio
Chairperson).
2. Lok Ayukta or, in his 2. Leader of Opposition. 2. Leader of
absence, a retired judge of Opposition.
High Court to be
nominated by the Chief
Justice or a Member of the
State Human Rights
Commission.
3. A sitting or retired judge 3. Judge, sitting or retired, 3. Chief
nominated by the Chief nominated by the Chief Secretary.
Justice of the High Court. Justice of the High Court.
4. Chief Secretary. 4. Chief Secretary. 4. DGP (ex-
officio
Secretary).
2025:HHC:21811
5. Leader of Opposition in 5. Three non-political 5. Five
the Lower House. citizens of proven merit and independent
integrity. Members.
6. DGP as ex-officio 6. DG Police as Secretary.
.
Secretary.
The recommendations of this Commission shall be binding on the
State Government.
The functions of the State Security Commission would include laying
down the broad policies and giving directions for the performance of
the preventive tasks and service oriented functions of the police,
evaluation of the performance of the State police and preparing a
report thereon for being placed before the State legislature.
Selection and Minimum Tenure of DGP:
(2) The Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by
the State Government from amongst the three senior-most officers
of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that
rank by the Union Public Service Commission on the basis of their
length of service, very good record and range of experience for
heading the police force. And, once he has been selected for the
job, he should have a minimum tenure of at least two years
irrespective of his date of superannuation. The DGP may, however,
be relieved of his responsibilities by the State Government acting in
consultation with the State Security Commission consequent upon
any action taken against him under the All India Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules or following his conviction in a court of law in a
criminal offence or in a case of corruption, or if he is otherwise
incapacitated from discharging his duties.
Minimum Tenure of I.G. of Police & other officers:
(3) Police Officers on operational duties in the field like the Inspector
General of Police in-charge Zone, Deputy Inspector General of
Police in-charge Range, Superintendent of Police in-charge district
and Station House Officer in-charge of a Police Station shall also
have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years unless it is found
necessary to remove them prematurely following disciplinary
proceedings against them or their conviction in a criminal offence or
in a case of corruption or if the incumbent is otherwise incapacitated
2025:HHC:21811
from discharging his responsibilities. This would be subject to
promotion and retirement of the officer.
Separation of Investigation:
.
(4) The investigating police shall be separated from the law and
order police to ensure speedier investigation, better expertise and
improved rapport with the people. It must, however, be ensured that
there is full coordination between the two wings. The separation, to
start with, may be effected in towns/urban areas which have a
population of ten lakhs or more, and gradually extended to smaller
towns/urban areas also.
Police Establishment Board:
(5) There shall be a Police Establishment Board in each State which
shall decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service
related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. The Establishment Board shall be a
departmental body comprising the Director General of Police and
four other senior officers of the Department. The State Government
may interfere with decision of the Board in exceptional cases only
after recording its reasons for doing so. The Board shall also be
authorized to make appropriate recommendations to the State
Government regarding the posting and transfers of officers of and
above the rank of Superintendent of Police, and the Government is
expected to give due weight to these recommendations and shall
normally accept it. It shall also function as a forum of appeal for
disposing of representations from officers of the rank of
Superintendent of Police and above regarding their
promotion/transfer/disciplinary proceedings or their being subjected
to illegal or irregular orders and generally reviewing the functioning
of the police in the State.
Police Complaints Authority:
(6) There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level
to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another
Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints
against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above.
The district level Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge
2025:HHC:21811
while the State level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of
the High Court/Supreme Court. The head of the State level
Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the State Government out
.
of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice; the head of the
district level Complaints Authority may also be chosen out of a panel
of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High
Court nominated by him. These Authorities may be assisted by three
to five members depending upon the volume of complaints in
different States/districts, and they shall be selected by the State
Government from a panel prepared by the State Human Rights
Commission/Lok Ayukta/State Public Service Commission. The
panel may include members from amongst retired civil servants,
police officers or officers from any other department, or from the civil
society. They would work whole time for the Authority and would
have to be suitably remunerated for the services rendered by them.
The Authority may also need the services of regular staff to conduct
field inquiries. For this purpose, they may utilize the services of
retired investigators from the CID, Intelligence, Vigilance or any
other organization. The State level Complaints Authority would take
cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by the police
personnel, which would include incidents involving death, grievous
hurt or rape in police custody. The district level Complaints Authority
would, apart from above cases, may also inquire into allegations of
extortion, land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious
abuse of authority. The recommendations of the Complaints
Authority, both at the district and State levels, for any action,
departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be
binding on the concerned authority.
National Security Commission:
(7) The Central Government shall also set up a National Security
Commission at the Union level to prepare a panel for being placed
before the appropriate Appointing Authority, for selection and
placement of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPO), who
should also be given a minimum tenure of two years. The
Commission would also review from time to time measures to
upgrade the effectiveness of these forces, improve the service
2025:HHC:21811
conditions of its personnel, ensure that there is proper coordination
between them and that the forces are generally utilized for the
purposes they were raised and make recommendations in that
.
behalf. The National Security Commission could be headed by the
Union Home Minister and comprise heads of the CPOs and a couple
of security experts as members with the Union Home Secretary as
its Secretary.
The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the Central
Government, State Governments or Union Territories, as the case may
be, on or before 31st December, 2006 so that the bodies afore-noted
became operational on the onset of the new year. The Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of State
Governments/Union Territories are directed to file affidavits of
compliance by 3rd January, 2007."
10. In afore Para, Hon'ble Apex Court held that there shall be
Police Establishment Board in each State, which shall decide all
transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of
officers, of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. As
per aforesaid judgment, State Government can interfere with the
decision of the Board in exceptional cases only, that too after recording
its reasons for doing so. In nutshell, Hon'ble Apex Court categorically
held that it is only Police Establishment Board, which is competent to
decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related
matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police.
11. Pursuant to finding given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
case detailed hereinabove, aforesaid provision with regard to
establishment of Police Establishment Board also came to be
2025:HHC:21811
incorporated in the Act under Section 56, as reproduced hereinabove.
Since record made available to this Court nowhere suggests that transfer
.
of the petitioner vide impugned transfer order was done on the basis of
recommendations given by Police Establishment Committee, headed by
Director General of Police, ground of administrative exigency, otherwise
sought to be set-up by learned Additional Advocate General deserves
outright rejection.
12. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Anand Prakash
Solanki, (2003) 7 SCC 403. In afore case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that
appointment by transfer can be made by the State Government only on
the recommendations of the Committee. Relevant Para of afore
judgment, reads as under:
"9. It is true that there is no cadre as such of the President and the
members of the District Fora contemplated by the Act and this is the
principal consideration which has prevailed with the High Court for
holding that the President and members of District Fora are not liable to
be transferred inasmuch as there is no single cadre of such persons in
the State. We cannot subscribe to that view. The existence of one
cadre is not essential and is not the sine qua non to make available the
power of transfer. As District Fora, more than one, are constituted
within the State, there is nothing wrong in the President or members of
one District Forum being appointed by transfer to another District
Forum, subject to the requirement of sub-Section (1A) of Section 10
being satisfied. Such appointment by transfer shall be made by the
State Government but only on the recommendation of the committee
consisting of the President of the State Commission and two
Secretaries, i.e. the committee composed as per sub- Section (1 A) of
Section 10. Such appointment by transfer cannot be a frequent or
2025:HHC:21811
routine feature. The power is there but is meant to be exercised
sparingly and only in public interest or in such exigencies of
administration as would satisfy the purpose of constituting the District
.
Forum. The broader concept of 'transfer' is a change of the place of
employment within an organization. Transfer is an incidence of public
service and the power to transfer is available to be exercised by the
employer unless an express bar or restraint on the exercise of such
power can be spelt out. The power, like all other administrative powers,
has to be exercised bona fide."
13. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate
General, placed heavy reliance upon judgment passed by Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No.2225 of 2020, titled Puran Chand Vs.
State of H.P. and Others, decided on 14.07.2020, to state that Police
Officer can be transferred in public interest, however, having carefully
perused aforesaid judgment, this Court finds no application of the same
in the case at hand. If the afore judgment is read in its entirety, it clearly
provides that though minimum tenure of service of two years at a given
station is provided to Officers posted as Station House Officer or as Sub-
Divisional Police Officer or as Superintendent of Police of a District, but
that does not mean that aforesaid Officers cannot be transferred before
the completion of the minimum tenure, but same can be done in
administrative exigency or in public interest. Most importantly, in
aforesaid judgment, it has been held that in order to ensure that the
Officers/Officials working in the Police Establishment are not subjected
to illegal, arbitrary or undue frequent transfers and the transfers of the
Officers/Officials are not left to the discretion of an individual, the Act
2025:HHC:21811
itself provides for adequate safeguards by providing for establishment of
a State Police Establishment Committee, headed by the Director
.
General of Police, which besides discharging other functions, has been
made responsible for recommending proposals for transfers and
postings of the Gazetted Officers to the State Government. There cannot
be any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law, rather, this Court is
of the view that till the time recommendation is not made by Police
Establishment Board, which in the present case is missing, no Police
Officer can be transferred by the competent authority.
14. Having perused Para 9 of the petition, this Court sees no
force in the submission of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel
representing private-respondent No.3, that attempt has been made by
the petitioner to hoodwink this Court by misstating the facts. A this stage,
it would be apt to take note of Para 9 of the petition, which reads as
under:
"9. That to be fair on facts, it is submitted that private respondent
herein has joined as Sub Divisional Police officer, Baijnath and, in fact,
petitioner was on earned leave on and with effect from 22.12.2024 to
29.12.2024. So far as private respondent herein is concerned, prior to
his transfer as SDPO, Baijnath, he was serving as Dy. Superintendent
of Police, 4th Indian Reserve Battalion, Jangalebere, Hamirpur where
now the person is posted as Dy. S.P. (leave reserve), Hamirpur. As
such, even on the request of the petitioner, particularly in view of the
facts above stated, there will be no prejudice to any person in case
status quo ante orders are passed.
Hence feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned acts of
the respondents, humble petitioner prefers the present petition is being
filed on the following amongst other grounds."
2025:HHC:21811
15. Though while referring to afore Para, Mr. Jagdish Thakur,
learned counsel representing private-respondent No.3, vehemently
.
argued that petitioner wrongly stated that private-respondent No.3 is
posted as Deputy Superintendent (Leave Reserve), Hamirpur, whereas
he had already joined as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Baijnath,
pursuant to impugned transfer order, but having carefully perused
aforesaid Para in its entirety, this Court is not persuaded to agree with
Mr. Thakur, for the reason that it has been categorically stated at the
behest of petitioner that private-respondent No.3 has joined as Sub-
Divisional Police Officer, Baijnath and petitioner was on earned leave
w.e.f. 22.12.2024 to 29.12.2024. He has further submitted that prior to
his posting/transfer as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Baijnath, private-
respondent was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, 4 th Indian
Reserve Battalion, Jangalbere, Hamirpur, where now petitioner has been
posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Leave Reserve), Hamirpur.
Since it is not in dispute, rather apparent from the order dated
03.01.2025 passed by this Court, thereby ordering parties to maintain
status quo ante as it existed qua the posting of the petitioner and the
private-respondent before the issuance of notification dated 24.12.2024,
that petitioner had specifically averred in the petition that pursuant to
impugned transfer order, private-respondent had joined, this Court is not
persuaded to agree with Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel
representing private-respondent No.3, that petitioner has not approached
2025:HHC:21811
this Court with clean hands. Had petitioner concealed factum with regard
to joining of the petitioner at Baijnath, pursuant to impugned transfer
.
order, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for this Court to pass
status quo ante order on 03.01.2025. If aforesaid order is read in its
entirety, it clearly suggests that Court at the time of passing the afore
order was fully aware that private-respondent had joined at Baijnath
pursuant to impugned transfer order. If it is so, it cannot be said that
attempt was ever made by the petitioner to misstate the facts.
16. Since it is quite apparent from the facts taken note
hereinabove that petitioner herein had not completed minimum tenure of
two years at the present place of posting and none of the
situations/reasons, as detailed in Section 12 of the Act, ever existed in
his case, coupled with the fact that at no point of time, Police
Establishment Board, headed by Director General of Police, ever
recommended transfer of the petitioner to the competent authority, this
Court sees no impediment in interfering with the impugned transfer
order, which otherwise appears to have been passed/issued for some
extraneous reasons.
17. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in
the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned
transfer order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set-
aside. Interim order dated 03.01.2025 stands hereby vacated.
2025:HHC:21811
The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also
the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 08, 2025
(Rajeev Raturi)
r to
