[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Suraj Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:10970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1781 of 2025
1. Suraj Kumar Das, aged 27 years, son of Late Dwarika Das, resident
of Mohalla-Bara Pichhari, P.O.- Kalyanpur, P.S.-Barwadda, District-
Dhanbad.
2. Anuj Kumar Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Umeshwar
Singh, resident of Village-Jhikatiya, P.O. & P.S-Hunterganj, District-
Chatra.
3 Baljit Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Binod Kumar, resident
of Village-Rasalpur, P.O-Oriwayan, P.S.-Ekanger Sarai, District-
Nalanda (Bihar).
4.Koushal Kumar Dubey, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Vijay Kumar
Dubey, resident of Village-Sirsagarha, P.O.-Singhdaha, P.S.-Topchanchi,
District-Dhanbad.
5. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, aged about 41 years, son of Shri Indradev
Singh, resident of Village-Karauta, P.O. & P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur, District-
Patna (Bihar)
6. Subodh Kumar Saw, aged about 40 years, son of Late Jagdish Saw,
resident of Village-Chouthai Kulhi, P.O. & P.S.-Jharia, District-Dhanbad.
7. Upendra Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Late Ramu Ram,
resident of Mohalla-Manaitand, Goal Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhansar,
District-Dhanbad.
8. Sudama Paswan, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Devsharan Paswan,
resident of Mohalla-Murlidih, Gulbazar, P.O. & P.S.-Mahuda, District-
Dhanbad.
9. Narayan Ram, aged about 46 years, son of Shri Rajesh Ram, resident
of Village-Ramakunda, P.O. & P.S.-Ramkanda, District-Garhwa.
10. Deepak Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Late Sadanand
Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Gamtariya, P.O-Badiyabad, P.S.-
Bengabad, District-Giridih.
11. Md. Majnum Miya, aged about 53 years, son of Md. Rasul Mia,
resident of Village-Haidar Nagar, Bhai Bigha, Ward No.10, Haidar
Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Haidar Nagar, District-Palamu.
12. Bir Bahadur Kumar, aged about 41 years, son of Shri Raj Kishor
Sharma, resident of Village-Dhangi, P.O.-Rowam, P.S.-Topchanchi,
District-Dhanbad.
13. Samsher Kumar Singh, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Krishna
Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Pipra, P.O.-Ankupa, P.S.-Kutumba,
District-Aurangabad (Bihar).
14. Yaduvendra Pratap Sinha, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Mithlesh
1
2026:JHHC:10970
Kumar Sinha, resident of Mohalla-Devi Mandir, Paharpur, P.O.-Kenar,
P.S Kenar, District-Gaya.
15.Saurav Kumar Sarkhel, aged about 35 years, son of Shri Subhash
Chandra Sarkhel, resident of Mohalla-Sarkheldih, P.O, P.S. & District
Jamtara.
16. Narendra Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Harishankar,
resident of Village-Madnadih, Kumhar Patti, P.O-Bansjora, P.S.-
Loyabad, District Dhanbad.
17 Pankaj Kumar Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Shri Arbind Kumar
Singh, Quarter No.364/CD, B-Type, Hariharpur, P.O. & P.S.-Hariharpur,
District-Dhanbad
18. Anil Kumar Mishra, aged about 39 years, son of Late Rajgrih
Mishra, resident of Hirapur, P.O. & PS-Hirapur, District-Dhanbad.
19. Munmun Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Shri Shrikant Singh,
resident of Nura Gali, Near Police Line Gate, Hazaribagh, P.O. & PS-
Lohsinghna, District-Hazaribagh.
20. Bharat Mandal, aged about 48 years, son of Late Keti Mandal,
resident of Village-Bhognadih, P.O. & P.S-Pathrol, District-Deoghar
... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary,
Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, having office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town & District-
Ranchi.
2 The Director General of Police, Jharkhand having office at Police
Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand,
having office at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S-Dhurwa,
Town and District-Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokaro, P.O.,
P.S. & District-Bokaro
5. Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District-
Dhanbad. ... ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) :Mr. Sushavan Bhowmik, AC to SC-V
--------
2026:JHHC:10970
Order No. 05 /Dated: 16th April 2026
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners
for the following reliefs:
"1. (i) to quash and set aside the transfer order contained in Memo
No.238/P dated 24.02.2025 (Annexure-1) issued under the pen and
signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) whereby
and whereunder all the petitioners have been transferred from
Dhanbad District Force to different other districts.
(ii) To also quash and set aside the relieving order contained in
Dhanbad District Force No.642 dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure-2) issued
under the pen and signature of Senior Superintendent of Police,
Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been ordered
to be relieved to join in the transferred districts.
(iii) During the pendency of this writ petition operation,
implementation and execution of the transfer order dated 24.02.2025
(Annexure-1) and relieving order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure-2) may
kindly be stayed.
(iv) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the petitioners
are found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances to this case as
also to do conscionable justice to the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that from bare
perusal of the impugned order of transfer, transferring the petitioners
appear to be on administrative exigencies; however, by way of RTI they
sought information with regard to reason of transfer and thereafter
Annexure-3 was issued which clearly transpires that the transfer order
was passed by way of punitive action.
3. From counter affidavit it also appears that several charges have
been made against the petitioners and as a matter of fact the
Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad vide its letter dated 27.01.2025
recommended the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Range,
Bokaro for transfer of police personnels in view of the fact that they
have been continuing in the district of Dhanbad for several years and
moreover, there are several allegations of dereliction of duty which
amounts to punitive order.
4. For brevity paragraph nos. 8 and 13 of the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 are extracted hereinbelow:
"8. That it is stated that the office of Senior Superintendent of Police,
2026:JHHC:10970
Dhanbad vide Letter No. 437, Dated 27.01.2025 recommended Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Coal Range, Bokaro, for transfer of
Police Personnel(s) in view of the fact that they have been continuing
in the District of Dhanbad for several years on the same post and
there are several allegations of dereliction of duty, negligence in
discharge of functioning etc.
13. That it is stated at the cost of reiteration that the petitioners have
been transferred to different Districts/Units on Administrative point of
view and also view of the fact that several charges have been found
against the petitioners for negligence of duty. It is submitted that
transfer of service, is an inherent condition of the service tenure of
Police Personnel(s) and therefore the transfer order is legally
sustainable and there is no illegality and perversity in the order of
transfer. Thus, the writ petition may be dismissed."
5. As a matter of fact, the law on the issue of transfer is now no
more res integra, inasmuch as, the employer is entitled to transfer any
of its employees in administrative exigencies; but when order of transfer
is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being
wholly illegal. In this regard, a reference may be made in "Somesh
Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. 1 wherein at paragraph no. 16 the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order.
There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is
ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in
cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved.
Mala fide is of two kinds-one malice in fact and the second malice in
law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law
as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of
transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations
made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one
thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in
administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order
of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an
order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to
be set aside being wholly illegal."
6. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondents that
since all the petitioners have joined their transferred post; as such, the
writ application has become infructuous. This Court does not accept the
said submission in view of the fact that when the transfer order itself is
quashed and set aside; it relates back to the date when the same was
(2009) 2SCC 592
2026:JHHC:10970
issued and it would be deemed that the petitioners or the delinquent
have never been transferred. In this regard reference may be made in
"Uttam Kujur v. State of Jharkhand & Ors." 2.
"14. It is lastly contended on behalf of the appellant that the transfer
order having been implemented, the writ itself rendered infructuous
and, thus, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is liable
to be quashed. We are unable to subscribe to this view. If a State
action is held to be illegal, invalid being arbitrary, it does not change
its status merely because the person has been forced or is compelled
to follow it to avoid any penal action...."
7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and the judgments
referred to hereinabove, transfer order dated 24.02.2025 and the
relieving order dated 11.03.2025, are hereby, quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed.
8. The petitioners are directed to join the original place of posting
and the respondents are directed to accept the joining of these
petitioners. It goes without saying that if the respondents wish to initiate
any proceeding, they may do so; but they should not punish in the
disguise of transfer.
9. Pending I. As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
th
16 April 2026
Amit
Uploaded on 24/04/2026
2008 (2) JCR 306 (JHR)
