State Of Rajasthan vs Banwari Lal
2021 Latest Caselaw 18009 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 609/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Dy. Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Police (D.G.P.), Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus Achala Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram, Aged About 55 Years, House No. Ha-02, Mahavir Nagar, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Hall Asst. Sub Inspector Of Police, Police Line, Barmer, Rajasthan).

----Respondent Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 657/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Rural Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus Dama Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Burkiya, Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 658/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

                                                                    ----Appellants



                                         (2 of 14)                [SAW-609/2021]


                                  Versus

Teja Ram S/o Shri Ramdev, Aged About 35 Years, Village Makhampura, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 659/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Kailash Dan S/o Mahesh Dan, Aged About 43 Years, Karni Colony, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 660/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Lukman S/o Shri Abdul Sattar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village- Khajuwana, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 661/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.

----Appellants Versus Subhash Chandra S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Ugras, Post Khara, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

                                         (3 of 14)                [SAW-609/2021]


                                                               ----Respondent

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 662/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Ram Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Village Ramsar, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 663/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Suresh Kuamr S/o Kishnaram, Aged About 44 Years, Hirni Dhani, Degana, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 664/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Om Prakash S/o Shri Jassaram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Siradhana, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 665/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,

(4 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Likhma Ram S/o Gumanaram, Aged About 47 Years, Village Satheran, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 666/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police (D.g.p.), Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Range Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer, Rajasthan.

5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Tane Singh S/o Shri Jethmal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Village Aarang, Tehsil Shiv, Barmer. At Present Head Constable, Ps Balotra District Barmer.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 667/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), DGP Office, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus Mahesha Ram S/o Shri Jawara Ram, Aged About 44 Years,

(5 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]

Resident Of Village Krishan Ka Tala, Somrar, Tehsil Dhanau, District Barmer (Raj.) At Present Posted As Head Constable, At Police Station Dhorimana, District Barmer (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 668/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Ramswaroop S/o Shri Surja Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Rotu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 669/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, District Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus Shyamlal S/o Shri Bhakar Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Khedi Salwa, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 671/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Banshilal S/o Shri Bhagchand, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Panchla Sidha, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj).

                                         (6 of 14)                [SAW-609/2021]


                                                               ----Respondent

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 672/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.

3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.

5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Tarachand, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Kalri, Tehsil Rajgarh, Churu. At Present Head Constable, Police Line, Hanumangarh.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 673/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Daya Sindhu S/o Shri Lekhram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Rotu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 674/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Banwari Lal S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Bhutawa Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj).

                                                               ----Respondent



                                            (7 of 14)                    [SAW-609/2021]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 675/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Bharmal S/o Shri Rampal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Rotu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 676/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Sharwan Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Alai, Tehsil Shribalaji, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 677/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Dhula Ram S/o Shri Shankarlal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Rotu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 678/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(8 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]

2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Pabu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Ishrawalo Ki Dhani, Laxman Nagar, Shri Lachamnagar, Jodhpur.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 679/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.

3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Churu.

5. The Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Karan Singh S/o Shri Harlal Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Kulhriyo Ka Bas, Tehsil Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu. At Present Posted As Constable At, Police Line, Churu.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 680/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Rural Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

----Appellants Versus Jhumar Ram S/o Shri Naina Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Hingoli, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj).

                                                                ----Respondent





                                           (9 of 14)                   [SAW-609/2021]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 681/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.

3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Churu.

5. The Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Naveen Kumar Shoran S/o Shri Ramotar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Bhandwa, Tehsil Bhadra, Bhiwani, At Present Posted As Constable At, Police Line, Churu.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with Mr. Kailash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Naveen, caveator Mr. Jasraj Singh

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

01/12/2021

This group of appeals arise out of the common judgment of

the learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2021. Issue pertains to

posting of Constables and Head Constables of the State Police

Department outside their districts and the Assistant Sub-

Inspectors outside their range. The learned Single Judge had

come to the conclusion that the posting of such police officials

outside their zone of transfer liability are not permissible in the

guise of deployment. The State has preferred these appeals

against the said judgment.

(10 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]

Several other appeals, the lead case being D.B. Special

Appeal (Writ) No.610/2021, State of Rajasthan and others

vs. Surendra Khokhar (Kumar) and connected appeals arising

out of the same judgment involving same issues had come up for

consideration before this Court on 29.11.2021. These appeals

were dismissed in following terms:

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error. There is absolutely no dispute about the facts that for Constables and Head Constables a district is a unit for the purposes of recruitment, promotion and seniority. Likewise, for the Assistant Sub-Inspector the range, which would include several districts, forms such a unit. Even the Government has not dispute that by virtue of such administrative divisions, ordinarily a Constable and Head Constable would be transferred within the district and Assistant Sub-Inspector would be transferred within a range. In other words, except under Section 34 of the Act, the administration would be in a position to transfer these officials within such areas alone. In this context, we may peruse Section 34 of the Act and Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules.

The preamble to the Act provides that to consolidate and amend the law relating to police force in the State and mattes connected therewith or incidental thereto, the Act was enacted for the following purposes:

"WHEREAS, respect for and promotion of the human rights of the people, and protection of their civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights is the primary concern of the Rule of law;

AND WHEREAS, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide impartial and efficient Police Service safeguarding the interests of vulnerable sections of the society including the minorities, and responding to the democratic aspirations of the citizens;

AND WHEREAS, such functioning of the police personnel needs to be professionally organized, service oriented, free from extraneous influences and accountable to law;

AND WHEREAS, it is expedient to redefine the role of the police, its duties and responsibilities by taking into account the emerging challenges of policing and security of

(11 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]

State, the imperatives of good governance, and respect for human rights;

AND WHEREAS, it is essential to appropriately empower the police to enable it to function as an efficient, effective, people-friendly and responsive agency."

Section 13 of the Act pertains to Director General of Police. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act provides that the State Government shall appoint a Director General of Police for the overall control, supervision and direction of the police force, who shall exercise such powers, perform such functions and discharge such duties, and have such responsibilities, as may be prescribed. Section 14 of the Act pertains to control, supervision and direction of police force in a police range. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act provides that the State Government shall appoint an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police to be in-charge of a police range. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides that the power of control, supervision and direction of the police force in a police range shall, subject to the overall control of the Director General of Police, vest in the officer in- charge of the police range. Section 16 of the Act pertains to control, supervision and direction of police force in a police district. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides that the State Government may appoint a District Superintendent of Police for a police district. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 16, the power of control, supervision and direction of the police force in a police district shall, subject to the overall control of the Director General of Police, vest in the District Superintendent of Police.

It can, thus, be seen that the said Act has been enacted for the purpose of creating a sensitive, efficient and people friendly police force. Overall control and supervision of the police force vests in the Director General of Police, whereas the State is divided into police district and police range. Subject to the overall control of the Director General of Police, supervision and control of the officials within the district and range would be vested in the respective heads of the unit.

Section 34 of the Act reads as under: "34. Police officers may be deployed in any part of the State - Every police officer may, at any time, be deployed as a police officer in any part of the State."

As per this provision thus every police officer may, at any time, be deployed as a police officer in any part of the State. Before we refer to this provision, we may also refer to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules,

(12 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]

on which reliance was placed by learned Additional Advocate General. Rule 3 of the Rules pertains to powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of Director General of Police. As per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, the overall supervision and control of the police force of the State shall vest in the Director General of Police. As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the Director General of Police shall be assisted by one or more Additional Directors General of Police and other officials mentioned therein. As per Clause (a) and (h) of Sub- rule (4) of Rule 3, the Director General of Police may issue orders to the police force for maintenance of law and order and regulation, deployment, movement and location of the members of the police force of the State.

Neither Section 34 of the Act nor Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules would empower the Director General of Police to routinely transfer a Constable or a Head Constable outside his parent district or Assistant Sub-Inspector outside his range. Section 34 is an extra-ordinary power authorising the Director General of Police to deploy any police official anywhere in the State. There is no denying or even questioning such wide powers. In the interest of administration of police force and for maintaining the law and order and managing sensitive situations, which may arise in the State, such powers are vested in the Act. However, there is a vast difference between 'transfer' and 'deployment'. In service jurisprudence, the term 'transfer' has a clear and well defined connotation where the headquarter of the employee and the range within which he would have to discharge his duties get shifted with his transfer from one place to another. Such transfer liability is always defined over a geographical area or a certain zone. Unless rules specifically provide, transfer outside such zone would not be permissible. Deployment, on the other hand, connotes a temporary posting of an employee to meet with emergent situations not necessarily confined to tackling sensitive law and order situation alone. It is neither possible nor necessary for us to go into the question as to under what circumstances, such powers of deployment can be exercised. Firstly, no such situation arises in the present case. Secondly, such deployment is left at the discretion of the Director General of Police. However, in the present case, the state administration has exercised the power of deployment for transferring a large number of employees. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar 2nd Edition of 2007, the term 'deployment' is described as "to spread out troops so as to form an extended front line". Likewise, in the Oxford English Dictionary (Shorter) the word 'deployment' is described as "spread out (troops etc.) to form an extended line

(13 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]

instead of a column; bring (armaments, men, etc.) into position for action and to bring into or position for effective action or make good use of".

It can thus be seen that in Law Lexicon and Oxford English Dictionary the term 'deployment' is seen as posting of available man power in a particular position for effective action to deal with an emergent situation. The power of deployment referred to in Section 34 of the Act, thus, cannot be misunderstood as one for routine transfers. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in coming to such a conclusion. Neither Clause (a) nor clause (h) of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules would make any change in this position. As noted above, under the said clauses, the Director General of Police can issue orders to the police force for maintenance of law and order and for regulation, deployment, movement and location of the members of the police force of the State. None of these powers would enable the Director General of Police to order transfer of employees outside the zone of transfer liability.

The decision in the case of Kashmir Singh (supra) was rendered by the Supreme Court in vastly different statutory provisions. In the said case, the police officials were governed by the Police Act, 1861 and Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Rule 1.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 specifically provided that all police officers appointed or enrolled in either of the two general police districts constitute one police force and are liable to, and legally empowered for, police duty anywhere within the province. No sub-division of the force territorially or by classes, such as mounted and foot police, affects this principle. This Rule further provided that every police officer shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or outside the State of Haryana and in any organisation under the Central Government. Rule 12.26 was specifically for inter- district transfers and provided that exchange of appointment between lower subordinates in districts of the same range or between such police officers in railway and district police, may be effected subject to the approval of the Superintendents concerned. A lower subordinate may be transferred to fill a vacancy in a district other than that in which he is serving only with the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of the range. It was in such background, the Supreme Court held that the inter-district transfers of police officials was permissible. In the present case, no such statutory scheme holds a field. On the contrary, the statutory provisions limit the transfer liability of the Constable and Head Constable within the district and the Assistant Sub-Inspector within the range. Section 34 of the Act would empower the Director General of

(14 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]

Police to deploy such police officials anywhere in the State, but the term 'deployment' is not synonym with 'transfer'.

We are prepared to proceed on the basis that the order dated 05.08.2021 saves the seniority of the transferred police officials in their parent district or range. However, this by itself would not authorise the administration to transfer the police officials outside their zone of transfer liability.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed."

Under the circumstances, these appeals are also dismissed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

103to128-MohitTak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)