State Of Rajasthan vs Sharwan Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 17880 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 610/2021

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

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

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

4. Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.

5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Surendra Khokhar (Kumar) S/o Banshi Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Kheduli Tehsil Merta Road, Nagaur. At Present Constable Driver, P.S. Samdari, District Barmer.

----Respondent Connected with D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 613/2021

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 Mangilal S/o Shri Bhajna Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Chakdhani, Tehsil Degana District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 614/2021

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

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

3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range Bikaner.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.

5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

                                                                ----Appellants



                                         (2 of 18)                 [SAW-610/2021]


                                   Versus

Revnta Ram S/o Dooda Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Village Chokhla, Tehsil Baytoo, Barmer. At Present Constable, Police Line District Barmer.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 615/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

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

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Rajasthan, (Head Quarter) Bikaner.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur, District Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Ramesh Kalla S/o Shri Madan Lal Ji, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Hanuman Bag, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 616/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

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

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Rajasthan (Head Quarter) Jaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur, District Nagaur.

----Appellants Versus Jaipal S/o Shri Narsi Ram, Aged About 35 Years, (Belt No. 1456), R/o Bargaon, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondent

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 622/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of

(3 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

3. The Superintendent Of Police (Head Quarter), Dgp Office, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Barmer.

----Appellants Versus Veeram Khan S/o Shri Hasam Khan, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Ubhare Ka Paar, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer (Raj.) Present Posted As Constable (GD), At Police Station Dharimana, District Barmer (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 624/2021

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 Jalam Singh S/o Shri Chhagan Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Rajod, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 620/2021

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 Ramniwas S/o Shri Ganpat Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Bhed, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondent


                                         (4 of 18)                    [SAW-610/2021]


               D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 621/2021

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

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

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

4. Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.

5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Bhinya Ram S/o Kita Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Chawam, Tehsil Barmer, Barmer, At Present Constable, Ps Sindhari, District Barmer.

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 630/2021

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

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur (Raj).

3. The District Superintendent Of Police, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Manya Ka Bass, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar. At Present Posted As Head Constable, Police Line, Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 642/2021

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 Kunwar S/o Shri Naula Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Somana, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj).

                                       (5 of 18)                   [SAW-610/2021]



                                                              ----Respondent
              D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 643/2021

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 Laxmi Narayan S/o Shri Ganga Ram Yadav, Aged About 43 Years, 1-235, Police Line, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 644/2021

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

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

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

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer.

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.

----Appellants Versus Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Ratna Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Karwada, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 645/2021

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 Dilip Bishnoi S/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 40 Years, Hirani Dhani, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).

                                                              ----Respondent



                                        (6 of 18)                 [SAW-610/2021]



               D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 646/2021

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 Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Piprali, Tehsil And District Sikar (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 647/2021

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 Manish Jakhar S/o Shri Bhikharam, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Salwa Kalla, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 648/2021

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 Ummed Singh S/o Shri Mohbat Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Madpura, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

                                                              ----Respondent
               D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 649/2021



                                       (7 of 18)                 [SAW-610/2021]

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 Sunil Vishnoi S/o Shri Ganpat Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Sanjay Colony, District Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 650/2021

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 Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Bala Ram, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, Resident Of Dholiya, Police Station Lathi, District Jaisalmer, At Present Posted As A Constable At Police Line, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 651/2021

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, Jaipur.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.

5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Purkha Ram S/o Nimba Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Aazad Nagar Netrad, Tehsil Chohtan, Barmer. At Present Assistant Sub Inspector, PS, RGT Nagar, Barmer.

                                       (8 of 18)                    [SAW-610/2021]



                                                               ----Respondent
              D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 652/2021

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, Jaipur.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.

5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Megha Ram S/o Nimba Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Village Chadar Bankalsar, Tehsil Ramsar, Barmer, At Present Constable, Mahila Police Station, Barmer.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 653/2021

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

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The District Superintendent Of Police, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Raj Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Khari Sultan District Jhajhar (Haryana) At Present Residing C- 4-6, Police Line, Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 654/2021

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



                                           (9 of 18)                 [SAW-610/2021]



                                      Versus

Poonamchand S/o Shri Banna Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Village Shriramwala, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer (Raj.), At Present Posted As Constable (GD), At Police Station Dhorimana, District Barmer (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 655/2021

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 Sharwan Ram S/o Shri Rooparam, Aged About 32 Years, Sarecha, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 656/2021

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 Santram Meena S/o Shri Shivcharan Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Village Daindan, Tehsil Sikari, District Dausa (Raj.).

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with Mr. Kailash Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma with Mr. Jasraj Singh, Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Caveator Mr. Jayram Saran, Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, Caveator Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr. Jai Naveen

(10 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

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

Judgment

29/11/2021

These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the

learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2021, by which large number of

writ petitions based on similar facts and legal challenge came to

be disposed of.

In brief, the question revolves around the power of the State

Government or for that matter of the Director General of Police to

cause inter-district or inter-range transfers of police personnel in

the cadre of Constables, Head Constables and Assistant Sub-

Inspectors. The case of the petitioners before the learned Single

Judge was that the police personnel belonging to these cadres are

having transferred liability only within the district (in case of

Constables and Head Constables) and within the range (for

Assistant Sub-Inspectors). Despite this, the Director General of

Police had subjected these petitioners to inter-district or inter-

range transfers, which they had challenged before the learned

Single Judge. The State administration had appeared and taken a

stand that in terms of Section 34 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Police

Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') framed under the

said Act, the Director General of Police had the power to transfer a

police officer out side his district or zone.

We may record facts from Civil Writ Petition No.10395/2021,

out of which Special Appeal (Writ) No.613/2021 arises. In this

case, the petitioner Mangi Lal was employed as a Constable Driver

in the police department. He was posted in Nagaur district. By an

(11 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

order dated 05.08.2021, he was transferred from Nagaur to Dausa

district. Nagaur falls under Ajmer range whereas Dausa falls in

Jaipur range. According to the petitioner, his transfer was not only

inter-district but it also changed his range. On this ground, his

transfer was bad in law.

The State administration appeared before the learned Single

Judge and filed a reply dated 17.08.2021, in which the stand

taken was that in terms of Section 34 of the Act, the Director

General of Police had the power to deploy the petitioner in any

part of the state. It was in exercise of such powers that he was

transferred. It was contended that in the matters of transfer, the

High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretionary

powers of the competent authority. It was clarified that the

seniority of the petitioner would be maintained in his parent

district. In support of this contention, an office order dated

10.08.2021 was placed before the Court providing that where ever

the transfer of a police official has been ordered outside his district

or range, his seniority would be maintained in the parent district

or the range, as the case may be.

The learned Single Judge, by a detailed judgment after

referring to various statutory provisions relied upon by both sides,

came to the conclusion that the district was unit for Constables

and Head Constables for the purposes of recruitment, promotion

and seniority. Likewise, for the Assistant Sub-Inspectors, a range

was a unit for such purposes. The learned Single Judge was of the

opinion that inter-district or inter-range transfer, as the case may

be, was not permissible in cases of Constables/Head Constables

and Assistant Sub-Inspectors respectively. Referring to Section 34

of the Act, the learned Single Judge observed that the same

(12 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

authorises the Director General of Police to deploy any police

official anywhere in the State and the term 'deployed' is vastly

different from the term 'transfer'. The State Government had

relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State

of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another

[(2010) 13 SCC 306]. This judgment was held not applicable in

view of different statutory provisions which were under

consideration before the Supreme Court, as compared to the State

of Rajasthan.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State

painstakingly argued that in terms of Section 34 of the Act and

Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the Director General of Police

had ample authority to place any police officer any where in the

State in the interest of administration. In the present case, the

seniority of all the employees has been preserved in their patent

district or range, as the case may be. In matters of transfer,

unless the same are shown to be mala fide or opposed to

statutory provisions, the Court would not interfere. It is the

administration, which in the best position, to decide at which place

which police official should be posted.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the original

petitioners on caveat opposed the appeals, contending that the

Act was enacted for the purpose of regulating the police services

and was not concerned with the service conditions of the police

officials. The service conditions of the police officials are governed

by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules,

1989. Our attention was drawn to Rule 26 of the said Rules to

contend that the recruitment, promotion, seniority and transfers of

police personnel at different levels is as provided in the said Rules.

(13 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

No Government servant can be posted outside the zone of his

transfer liability otherwise than on deputation. In the present

case, in the guise of powers for temporary deployment of police

force to deal with the emergency situations, the administration

has passed transfer orders, which would have permanent effect.

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

(14 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

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 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.

(15 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

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, 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.

(16 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

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 2 nd Edition of 2007, the

term 'deployment' is described as "to spread out troops so as to

(17 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

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 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

(18 of 18) [SAW-610/2021]

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 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.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ 247to253,4,5,6,1to15-MohitTak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)