Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhimanyu Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.16589/2021
(ABHIMANYU DWIVEDI VS. THE STATE OF M.P.)
Jabalpur; Date:01/09/2021
Shri Brajesh Choubey, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Jubin Prasad, Panel lawyer for the respondent-State.
Shri Amit Seth, counsel for the caveator.
Heard.
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality,
validity and propriety of the order dated 21/08/2021 (Annexure-P-
2), whereby, he has been directed to be transferred from Sub
Police Station, Jayant (Chowki) to Police Line, Singrauli and
respondent no.4 has been brought in place of the petitioner.
(2) Challenge is founded mainly on the ground that transfer of
the petitioner is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of (Prakash Singh & others Vs. Union of India
and others), 2006(8) SCC 1.
(3) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer of
the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of transfer policy,
wherein it is mentioned that the transfer of police officers shall be
made by the Police Establishment Board, constituted in pursuance
to the order issued by the Home Department on 14/02/2007. The
policy further provides that, if transfer is to be made within the
district, the same can be done only with the consultation of In-
charge Minister. He further submits that said requirement has not
been complied with, therefore, the order of transfer of the
petitioner is illegal. He submits that the order of transfer of the
petitioner has been passed under some political influence only to
accommodate respondent no.4. The order is issued with malice,
and also is in violation of Police Regulation 198 and 579,
therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside.
(4) Shri Amit Seth, counsel for caveator submits that law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra)
does not apply on the petitioner, because he is holding the post of
Sub Inspector, whereas in the case of Prakash Singh (supra), the
Supreme Court has dealt with the transfer of police officer holding
the post of Station House Officer and higher than that. He further
submits that as per the instructions issued by the Home Department
on 14/02/2007, Police Establishment Board shall consider the case
of the transfer up to the rank of Inspector, and the petitioner is
holding the post lower than the Inspector, therefore, his case is not
required to be considered by the Police Establishment. He further
submits that the petitioner is facing a departmental enquiry and as
per the provision of policy, on which he is relying i.e Clause 40
very categorically provides that ; if an officer/employee is facing a
departmental enquiry, then the said employee shall not be posted
on an executive post, therefore, the petitioner has been transferred
from Chowki, Jayant to Police line, Singrauli.
(5) Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is being
transferred within the district, and earlier transfer orders are also
within the district, therefore, plea of frequent transfer is not
available to him. He further submits that the benefit of the case of
Prakash Singh (supra) cannot be granted to the petitioner, because
he is holding the post of Sub Inspector, whereas, that law is
applicable to the police officers, holding the rank of Inspector and
higher than that post. He submits that the petitioner is being shifted
within the district, therefore, he cannot be said to be a victim of
frequent transfer.
(6) Considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for
parties, and perusal of record, it is clear that the case of Prakash
Singh (supra) is not applicable to the petitioner, because normal
tenure of a police officer up to the rank of Inspector is determined
two years by the Supreme Court, and advised to the State
Government to constitute a transfer Board to consider the cases of
transfer of police officers holding the rank of Inspector. The
minimum tenure of a police officer up to the rank of Inspector is
advised for two years, therefore, the petitioner cannot take the
benefit of the said order, as he is not holding the post of Inspector
and above to that, but he is holding the lower post than that of
Inspector.
(7) Even otherwise, when the petitioner is facing a departmental
enquiry, and it is mentioned in the policy that a person who is
facing departmental enquiry should not be posted on executive
post and as such giving posting to the petitioner in the police line
does not appear to be illegal. The judgment passed by this Court
on 24/06/2021 in W.P.No.14066/2019 (Shashi Bhusan Dubey Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) is also not applicable
to the petitioner, because in the said case, the petitioner was
holding the post of Inspector, and was holding the charge of police
Station, but here, the petitioner is holding the charge of sub police
station (Chowki), therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of
order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case.
(8) Under the circumstances, when the petitioner is facing a
departmental enquiry and is holding the post of Sub-Inspector
transferring from Chowki to Police Line, within the district
interference in the matter by granting any interim protection is not
proper. Petitioner has also pointed out Regulation 198 and 579 of
Police Regulation, but under the facts and circumstances of the
case, those provisions do not help the petitioner.
(9) In view of aforesaid, I do not find any violation of provision
of policy, and also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of Prakash Singh (supra).
(10) The petition, therefore is without any substance and is hereby
dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
Judge
sushma
Digitally signed by SMT SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
SMT SUSHMA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
KUSHWAHA 2.5.4.20=1b179d4135aa54208a6d360acf1af13
c3053b0dc5ecd3659a0774fc4fc8ef9b7,
cn=SMT SUSHMA KUSHWAHA
Date: 2021.09.06 12:54:19 +05'30'
