Allahabad High Court
C.P. 212 Mannu Singh S/O Keshav Prasad ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. & Ors. ( S/S ... on 1 February, 2010
Author: Pradeep Kant
Bench: Pradeep Kant, Ritu Raj Awasthi
1
Court No. 1
Special Appeal No. 56 of 2010
C.P. 212 Mannu Singh and others
Vs.
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Heard the counsel for the appellants Dr. V.K. Singh and Smt. Sangeeta Chandra for the State.
Smt. Sangeeta Chandra has raised a preliminary objection about the petition being filed jointly in respect of five Constables, who were issued separate transfer orders.
We are of the view that since there is no jural relationship amongst the appellants (petitioners in the writ petition) nor any common cause of action had accrued, therefore, joint petition could not have been filed. However, since the writ petition has been dismissed and special appeal has been filed against such an order, we do not intend to dismiss the writ petition with respect to the four appellants on this ground.
The appellants who are Police Constables working with the U.P. Civil Police, feeling aggrieved by the order of their transfer passed separately on 7.1.2010, filed the present writ petition. The transfer orders issued separately have been brought on record, which show that five appellants have been transferred to different places from their place of present posting i.e. Sultanpur.
Dr. V.K. Singh assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, submitted that the Inspector General was competent to transfer Police Officers not above the rank of Inspector and the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the range was competent to transfer Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables within his range.
Smt. Sangeeta Chandra appearing for the State, in response, has submitted that these are the cases, where transfer orders have been effected under the directives of the Police Establishment Board, which directives have only been complied by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order has not been passed by the competent authority.
We have perused the orders of transfer and we find that the same 2 have been passed in compliance of the decision of the Police Establishment Board dated 23.12.09. There is no challenge in the writ petition regarding the authority of the Police Establishment Board nor any infirmity has been pointed out in passing the transfer orders in pursuance of the decision aforesaid.
That being so and in terms of judgement passed by the apex court in the case of Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 2006 (8) SCC 1, if the order has been passed on the directives/decision of the Police Establishment Board, mere communication or compliance by the Deputy Inspector General of Police would not make the order bad.
The special appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is maintained. The liberty given by the learned Single Judge can still be availed by the appellants, if they so desire. In the meantime, joining of the appellants at the transferred place shall be subject to any order, which might be passed on their representations but this order would not mean that the appellants are at liberty not to join at the transferred places.
Learned counsel for the appellants, states that the appellants are ready and willing to joint at the transferred place, subject to any order which may be passed on their representation.
We, therefore, further provide that in case the appellants report for joining at the transferred places within two weeks from today and no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against them yet, they shall be allowed to join and shall be paid their salary. The question regarding payment of salary for the period during which they remained out of duty, shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
Dated: 1.2.2010 MFA