Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devilal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47057]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1249/2021
1. Devilal S/o Shri Banwarilal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo
Dabli Rathan, Ward No. 15 Wass Molvi, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh.
2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Jagdish Chander, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ward No. 2 Pakka Bhadwan, Tehsil Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary
Department Of Home Affairs Govt. Of Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NR Budania
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
01/11/2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by an
order dated 03.09.2021 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10353/2021: Subhash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.
Relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"(35) As the appointing authority of Constable/Head-
Constable is the Superintendent of Police of the district
concerned, consequent to their transfer under
(Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 12:43:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47057] (2 of 4) [CW-1249/2021]
consideration, the Constables and Head-Constables will
be required to receive instructions/directions from the
Superintendent of Police of the district in which they
have been transferred and as a natural corollary of
their transfer, their appointing authority, so also the
disciplinary authority will be changed.
(36) Such action of the respondents cannot be
countenanced as the Appointing Authority and
Disciplinary Authority of an employee cannot be
changed without his/her consent.
(37) The transfers made vide order under challenge
are, on the one hand, contrary to the statutory
provisions and judgments of this Court and on the
other hand reflective of non-application of mind.
(38) This Court fails to comprehend that if any
disciplinary action is to be taken against a transferred
Constable/Head Constable, then, who will be the
competent authority to initiate the enquiry? Subhash
Chandra (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10353/2021), being a Constable (General Duty),
has been transferred from Jaisalmer to G.R.P., Ajmer;
his disciplinary authority prior to the impugned transfer
was Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer. May be, as
per the stand of the respondents, his seniority will
remain as per his seniority in Jaisalmer, but what
would happen if the persons junior to him posted in
Jaisalmer arepromoted, whereas no promotional
avenues are available in G.R.P., Ajmer. Will he still be
given promotion?
(39) That apart, if due to any delinquency, a
disciplinary action is proposed to be taken against the
said Constable (Subhash Chandra), whether the
Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer will be the
competent authority to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings or the Superintendent of Police at Ajmer!
(40) There are many more related or ancillary
questions attached with such transfer, such as; at
which place the service record of the transferred
employees will be kept, who will deal with leave
applications etc. of the transferred
Constable/HeadConstables and A.S.Is? The Rules of
1989 are silent in this regard. The hiatus, if any,
cannot be filled by the administrative orders.
(41) According to this Court, transfers affected by the
impugned order, shunting petitioners even out of
range, would entail more complications than serving
(Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 12:43:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47057] (3 of 4) [CW-1249/2021]
the cause of administration; let alone, the
inconvenience caused to the petitioners.
(42) During the course of submission, learned
Additional Advocate General apprised the Court that
most of the petitioners are facing cases of anti-
corruption and hence, in the interest of better
administration, the respondent No.2 has decided to
transfer these
employees out of their respective range, so that they
cannot influence the investigation.
(43) This Court feels that the same cannot be a reason
or ground to transfer a Constable/Head-Constable or
even an A.S.I. out of his range. Such stand reflects
State's lack of confidence in the officers and
investigating agencies.
(44) As an outcome of the discussion foregoing, these
writ petitions deserve to be, and are hereby allowed.
The impugned order dated 05.08.2021, qua each of the
petitioners, whose names are mentioned in the
schedule, including that of Subhash Chandra, is
quashed."
The Division Bench, on appeal, came to the conclusion
that statutory provisions limit the transfer liability of
the Constable and
Head Constable within the district and the Assistant
Sub Inspector within the Range.
So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for
the respondents pertaining to the interpretation of the
provisions is concerned, the Coordinate Bench as well
as the Division Bench have taken into consideration the
provisions of Rules and as such, the submissions made
in this regard cannot be countenanced.
Further submissions were attempted to be made by
learned counsel for the respondents that present is not
a case of transfer and the same is only a change of
Headquarter and as such, the ratio in the case of
Subhash Chandra (supra) would not apply.
A perusal of the judgment of Subhash Chandra (supra)
as quoted hereinbefore would reveal that in para No.42
& 43, the Coordinate Bench has dealt with the said
aspect and had negated the said submissions,
therefore, the said aspect also is no more res integra.
In view of the above discussion, following the
judgments in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) and
Surendra Khokhar (supra), the petitions filed by the
petitioners are allowed. The order dated 18.12.2020
(Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 12:43:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47057] (4 of 4) [CW-1249/2021]
(Annex.3) qua the petitioners are quashed and set
aside."
2. Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to refute the
applicability of the aforequoted order.
3. In light of aforequoted order, the present petition is allowed.
The transfer order dated 18.12.2020 (Annex.3) qua the petitioners
is hereby quashed and set aside.
4. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
27-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 12:43:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
