Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Loonaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:3615) on 23 January, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:3615]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 287/2022
Tapendra Bhadu S/o Mahiram Bhadu, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Post Roda, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7368/2021
Loonaram S/o Shri Mota Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village
Batadu, Tehsil Baytu, District Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director General Of Police (Vigilance),
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate Of
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Headquarter And
Traffic, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayram Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 23/01/2024 (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:42:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:3615] (2 of 3) [CW-287/2022]
1. Mr. Manish Vyas, Learned Additional Advocate General, at the outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ petitioner stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10353/2021 on 03.09.2021, holding thus:
"(35) As the appointing authority of Constable/Head-
Constable is the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned, consequent to their transfer under 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 are promoted, 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 (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:42:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:3615] (3 of 3) [CW-287/2022] 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 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.
(45) The stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly."
2. On such categorical submission made by learned Additional Advocate General, the present petitions are disposed of in the light of the decision rendered vide order dated 03.09.2021 passed in Subhash Chandra's case (supra) on the same terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 238-Zeeshan (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 08:42:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)