Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ram Gopal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2022

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                        1




                                                                          AFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                            WPS NO. 5280 OF 2021
        Damrudhar Rathiya, S/o Shriram Rathiya, aged about 33 years,
   presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o
   C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.)
                                                                ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home,
   Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District
   Raipur (C.G.)
3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)
                                                              ... Respondents

WPS NO. 6379 OF 2021  Santosh Kumar, S/o Chetan Lal Sahu, aged about 37 years, presently posted as Constable at C. T. J. W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C. T. J. W. College, Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5459 OF 2021  Kaushalpati Mishra, S/o Chandrashekhar Mishra, aged about 36 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5482 OF 2021  Ram Kumar Adil, S/o Gula Ram Adil, aged about 39 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 2 ... Respondents WPS NO. 6832 OF 2021  Beni Madhvendra Yadav, S/o Nand Kishore Yadav, aged about 36 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o

-C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 6830 OF 2021  Vedprakash Sahu, S/o Omprakash Sahu, aged about 33 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5349 OF 2021  Shiv Lal Sahu, S/o Budel Ram Sahu, aged about 40 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5475 OF 2021  Ram Gopal Yadav, S/o S.N. Yadav, aged about 41 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.G.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents 3 WPS NO. 5356 OF 2021  Narendra Singh Rajput, S/o Bhagwan Din Singh, aged about 41 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5464 OF 2021  Asghar Ali Ansari, S/o Late Abdul Samad, aged about 42 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5478 OF 2021  Satish Parihar, S/o Thakur Jogindra Singh Parihar, aged about 39 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5488 OF 2021  Naresh Kumar Thakur, S/o Chavar Singh Thakur, aged about 34 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents 4 WPS NO. 5491 OF 2021  Dumendra Singh, S/o B.L. Singh, aged about 33 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.) R/o- C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5497 OF 2021  Karuna Sagar, S/o Shivan Ram, aged about 34 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.) R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5578 OF 2021  Jaipal Kujur, S/o A.C. Kujur, aged about 36 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5583 OF 2021  Subhash Pandey, S/o B.P. Pandey, aged about 38 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents 5 WPS NO. 5819 OF 2021  Rajesh Kumar, S/o Baran Lal, aged about 33 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5756 OF 2021  Sunau Ram Netam, S/o Lakhamu Ram Netam, aged about 41 years, presently posted as Constable at C. T. J. W. College, Kanker (C.G.) R/o C.T. J. W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5354 OF 2021  Anil Kumar, S/o D.B. Singh, aged about 34 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5283 OF 2021  Vimlesh Yadav, S/o Ramdhani Yadav, aged about 36 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.), R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents 6 WPS NO. 5342 OF 2021  Jitendra Meshram, S/o Temlal Meshram, aged about 36 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, (C.G.) R/o. C.T.J.W. College, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 6178 OF 2021  Manvendra Singh, S/o Harigyan Singh, aged about 31 years, posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5358 OF 2021  Khilawan Yadav, S/o H.K. Yadav, aged about 38 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o. C.T.J.W. College, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5915 OF 2021  Chaitu Tandan, S/o Aghnarayan Tandan, aged about 36 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.) R/o- C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents 7 WPS NO. 5905 OF 2021  Vijay Rajwade, S/o Hari Prasad Rajwade, aged about 36 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5911 OF 2021  Jeevan Toppo, S/o Sonsai Toppo, aged about 43 years, presently posted as Head Constable at C. T. J. W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS NO. 5420 OF 2021  Ramchandra Kaivart, S/o Sohan Lal Kaivart, aged about 37 years, presently posted as Constable at C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). R/o C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, Premises, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Director, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate, along with Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. Advocate General.

8

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [16/03/2022]

1. This batch of Writ Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners challenging the competency of the Authority in issuing the Order of transfer dated 4.9.2021 whereby the Petitioners have been posted from one place to another.

2. The impugned Order dated 4.9.2021 has been issued by the Police Headquarters, Raipur, under the signature of Director General of Police (for short, "DGP").

3. The issue involved in the instant case is whether the Transfer Order could be issued by the DGP in the light of Section 22 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 (for short, "the Police Act").

4. The question of law to be answered in this bunch of Writ Petitions is, "as to whether the impugned Order in all these Petitions is in contravention to Section 22 of the Police Act".

5. Since the facts in all these cases revolve around the same common Order dated 4.9.2021, this Court is not going into the factual aspects in detail except for the fact that all the Petitioners herein are Head Constable or Constable under the Respondents and vide the impugned Order they have been transferred to the respective places as assigned in the impugned Order.

6. Another admitted fact as is revealed from the pleadings is that all the Petitioners herein are police personnel working under the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces.

7. The primary challenge to the impugned Order of transfer is on the ground that the same is in violation to Rule 22(2)(a) of the Police Act.

According to learned Counsel for Petitioners, under the Police Act the power to transfer personnel in the Police Department of the subordinate ranks up to the level of Inspector, from one Zone or Range or District to another, has been entrusted with the Police Establishment Board. Once 9 when under the statute governing the service conditions of the personnel the power to transfer has been vested upon the Police Establishment Board, the Order of transfer could not have been issued by any other Authority other than the Police Establishment Board. Thus, prayed for the quashment of the impugned Order of transfer.

8. Learned Counsel for Petitioners heavily relies upon few of the Judgments passed by this Bench in identical set of facts including a few of the earlier transfer orders relating to a few of the present petitioners wherein while allowing those cases it was held that the transfer of police personnel below the rank of Inspector could have only been issued by the Police Establishment Board. Further that any Order other than the one issued by the Police Establishment Board would be without competence and jurisdiction. Some of those Judgments as relied upon in this regard are: WPS No.7719/2018 decided on 28.11.2018 (Setvansh Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and WPS No.8023/2018 decided on 28.11.2018 (Kaushalpati Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others).

9. To further substantiate their contention, learned Counsel for Petitioners has also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Writ Appeal No.75/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Smt. Gayatri Verma) which stood decided on 10.2.2022 wherein the Division Bench has confirmed the Order passed by this Bench in yet another matter of identical set of facts, i.e., WPS No.4258/2021 decided on 23.9.2021.

10. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that it is a case where the Petitioners in fact are the members of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force which itself is a Force which has been constituted by way of a special enactment known as "The Chhattisgarh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Adhiniyam, 1968" (for short, "the 1968 Adhiniyam"). According to learned 10 Additional Advocate General, the Chhattisgarh Armed Force cannot be compared with the regular Police Force under the State Government since the Chhattisgarh Armed Force has its own Act and Rules inclusive of the service conditions, the provisions of the Police Act or for that matter the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations cannot be made applicable applying a straight jacket formula.

11. Learned Additional Advocate General tries to canvass the fact that since there is a separate Act and Rules governing the service conditions of the personnel under the Chhattisgarh Armed Force, the provisions of Section 22 of the Police Act would not be applicable in the instant case and therefore the present Petitions considering this aspect are liable to dismissed.

12. As regards the Judgments of this Bench as also the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the contention of the Additional Advocate General is that the aspect so far as the appointment being made under the special Act and its applicability has not been dealt with by either the Single Bench or by the Division Bench while the matter was decided earlier and therefore those judgments would be distinguishable on facts & law.

13. Learned Additional Advocate General further referred to Section 9 of the CVSBA, 1968 and Rule 55 of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Sashastra Bal Niyam, 1973 (for short, "the 1973 Niyam") which deals with inter se transfer of police personnel and officers from the Chhattisgarh Special Armed Force to the Police Force and vice- versa.

14. With the aid of Section 9 & Rule 55 of 1973, learned Additional Advocate General submits that from the aforesaid Rule provisions it has to be inferred that the authority to transfer has been entrusted with the higher Authorities in the Department. Accordingly, if the higher Authorities have been empowered to transfer the personnel from Special Armed Force to the Police Force and vice-versa, they would also have the power to 11 transfer from one district and zone to another District and another Zone and from one place to another. According to learned Additional Advocate General, since it is a separate Establishment altogether having its own Act and Rules dealing with the establishment as also in respect of service conditions, the Order of transfer cannot be said to be either bad or without jurisdiction or arbitrary.

15. Lastly, it was contended by learned Additional Advocate General that if at all the contentions of the Petitioners that it is the Police Act which is applicable then also the Writ Petitions should not be entertained as there is a remedy of Appeal provided under the Police Act and on that count also the Writ Petitions deserves to be dismissed holding to be not maintainable.

16. Coming to the different statutory provisions, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the definition of "Police Officer" under the 1968 Adhiniyam. For ready reference, Section 2(g) defining "Police Officer" is reproduced below:-

"2.(g) "Police Officer" means every Police Officer as defined in the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861);"

17. Section 9 of the 1968 Adhiniyam deals with transfer of a personnel from Special Police Force, which again for ready reference is being reproduced as under:-

"9. Transfer. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), it shall be competent to the State Government or the Inspector General if so authorised by the State Government in this behalf, to transfer members of the Police Force appointed under the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), to the Special Armed Force and vice-versa.
(2) On the transfer of a member of the Police Force appointed under the Police Act. 1861 (V of 1861), to the Special Armed Force or vice-versa, he shall be deemed to be a member of the Special Armed Force or the Police Force, as the case may be, to which he is transferred and in the performance of his functions, he shall, subject to such orders as the State Government may make, be deemed to be vested with the powers and privileges and be subject to the liabilities, of a member of such grade in the Special Armed Force or the Police Force, as the case may be to which he has been transferred as may be specified in the orders."
12

18. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to take note of Rule 55 of the 1973 Niyam:-

"55. Transfers. - Transfers of Officers and members of the subordinate ranks from the Special Armed Force to the Police Force shall be governed by the provisions of Section 9 of the Act."

19. Plain reading of the aforesaid two provisions, i.e., Section 9 of the 1968 Adhiniyam and Rule 55 of the 1973 Niyam, would clearly indicate that the transfer referred to in these provisions is only dealing with the inter se transfer of police personnel and the members of the subordinate ranks from the Special Armed Force to the Police Force vice-versa.

20. The aforesaid two provisions of law do not reflect or entrust the Authorities for transferring the police personnel of the subordinate ranks from one place to another. This, in other words, means that the power to transfer from one place to another has been deliberately excluded from the 1968 Adhiniyam and the Rules framed therein.

21. It would now be relevant to take note of the provisions and the applicability of the Police Act (The Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007). The Police Act came into force from 9.4.2008. The said Act repealed the earlier Indian Police Act, 1861 and its applicability. Under Section 2(h) of the Police Act, the definition of "Police Officer" has been provided, as under:-

"2(h). "Police Officer" means any member of the Police Force appointed under this Act or appointed before the commencement of this Act for the State and includes members of the Indian Police service or members of any other police organization on deputation to the State Police, serving for the State and persons appointed under section 9 or 10 of this Act;"

22. Plain reading of the aforesaid definition would clearly indicate that the Law Makers when they referred to the term "Police Officer" under the Police Act they meant any members of the Police Force appointed under the State of Chhattisgarh or any Officer who is on deputation to the State in the Police Department. The said Act does not have the definition to define the "Police Force".

13

23. Since the Police Act does not have the definition of "Police Force", it is relevant for this purpose to refer to the definition of "Police Force".

Regulations 2 and 3 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations (for short, "the Police Regulations") would give insight for reaching to the conclusion on the issue of the definition of "Police Force". Regulations 2 & 3 of the Police Regulations for ready reference are also being presented herein below:-

"2. With reference to Section 3 of the Act, the States are constituted into two general police districts, namely :-
(a) The State police district.
(b) The railway police district.

3. State Police - Staff of. - The staff of the State police district consists of -

(a) The administrative and superintending staff.
(b) The District Executive Force.
(c) The Criminal Investigation Department.
(d) The Special Armed Force.
(e) The Training Institutions. "
24. Plain reading of Regulation 3 of the aforesaid Police Regulations would clearly indicate that the members of the Special Armed Force have also been treated as part and parcel of the State Police District. When we read the definition of "Police Officer" under Section 2(h) of the Police Act and the Regulations 2 & 3 of the Police Regulations, it would clearly force us to reach to the conclusion that the personnel from the Special Armed Force have not been excluded for the purpose of the applicability of the Police Act.
25. What is also at this juncture necessary to appreciate is the fact that neither under the Police Act nor under the Police Regulations has it been explicitly mentioned so far as the applicability of the aforesaid two provisions upon the personnel in the Chhattisgarh Armed Force cadre in the absence of a specific provision under the Police Act or for that matter under the 1968 Adhiniyam. As regards the provisions of the Police Act not being applicable upon the personnel working under the 1968 Adhiniyam and Rules framed therein, in the absence of a specific exclusion of the 14 applicability of the Police Act upon the services of the Special Armed Force, for all practical purpose it has to be considered to be an inclusive provision.
26. Another striking feature which is reflected from the contentions made by the Petitioners is that there are, from among the bunch of Writ Petitioners, seven Petitioners who were in the past also transferred under the similar circumstances by an Order issued from the office of the Police Headquarters. In the case of those seven Petitioners, there were Writ Petitions filed before this Court and all those Writ Petitions were allowed only on the ground of competency of the Authority other than the Police Establishment Board for the purpose of transferring the personnel of the subordinate ranks. In all those cases where the Writ Petitions were allowed, no Appeal has been preferred by the State Government and the Orders passed therein have since attained finality. The Writ Petitions of the seven Petitioners from among this batch of Writ Petitions are: (1) WPS No.5459/2021, (2) WPS No.5464/2021, (3) WPS No.5578/2021, (4) WPS No.5583/2021, (5) WPS No.5358/2021, (6) WPS No.5915/2021 & (7) WPS No.5905/2021.
27. Since the aforementioned Writ Petitions were allowed under the similar set of facts, this Court would be compelled to force to take the same view by holding that the Transfer Order dated 4.9.2021 in the instant case so far as the Petitioners herein are concerned are also not sustainable and is in violation of Section 22(2)(a) of the Police Act.
28. The view of this Court stands further fortified from the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. No.75/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Smt. Gayatri Verma) decided on 10.2.2022. The Division Bench has, dealing with the very Judgment which travelled from this Bench whereby the Writ Petition was allowed under the 15 similar grounds, in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 9, 11,12 & 13 of the aforesaid Judgment the Division Bench held as under:-
"5. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act provides that the Act extends to the whole of the State of Chhattisgarh and to the police officers of the State of Chhattisgarh deployed even outside the State. 'Police Officer' is defined under Section 2(h) of the Act to mean any member of the Police Force appointed under the Act or appointed before the commencement of the Act for the State and also includes the members of the Indian Police Service or members of any other police organisation on deputation to the State Police, serving for the State and persons appointed under Section 9 or 10 of the Act.
6. Section 9 and Section 10 of the Act provide for appointment of Special Police Officers and Additional Police Officers, respectively. Special Police Officers may be appointed subject to the rules prescribed in that behalf by the Superintendent of Police by an order in writing for a period as specified in the appointment order and such appointed officer shall have the same powers, privileges and protection and shall be liable to perform the same duties and shall be amenable to the penalties and shall be subordinate to the same authorities, as the ordinary police officers of the police. Under Section 10 of the Act, the State Government, or as the case may be, an authority specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may appoint Additional Police Officers for such purposes and on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed.
7. The 'Constitution and Organization of the Police' is placed under Chapter II of the Act. Section 3 deals with the constitution of State Police and Section 3(3) of the Act provides that the organisation of the State Police may include training institutions, research and development bureaus, technical and support services, intelligence and criminal investigation units and other bodies and units as determined by the State Government from time to time. Section 4 of the Act enables the State Government to divide the entire geographical area of the State into one or more Police Zones vesting the administration in an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act provides that the State Government may divide the entire geographical area of Zone into one or more Police Ranges. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act provides that administration of the police in Police Range shall vest in an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police.
9. It is manifest that Section 2(h) of the Act includes all police officers and therefore, the contention advanced that the police officers deployed in the intelligence duties are excluded from the purview of the Act, cannot be sustained.
16
11. It is not in dispute that the State Government had issued notification constituting a Board. The composition of the Board goes to show that it is a high-powered body with Director General of Police as its Chairman and four other officers not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police as members.
12. Section 22(2) of the Act provides that the Board shall perform functions and duties, amongst others, of transfer of subordinate ranks upto the level of Inspector from one Zone or Range or District to another. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner, who is an Inspector, is transferred from one District to another.
13. In that view of the matter, the contention sought to be advanced that the Inspector General of Police, on the basis of administrative powers vested on him, can issue the transfer order, is wholly misconceived."

29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the definition of "Police Officer" under Section 2(h) of the Police Act read with the Regulations 2 & 3 of the Police Regulations, further taking into consideration the definition of "Police Officer" under Section 2(g) of the 1968 Adhiniyam coupled with the fact that the Police Act does not anywhere explicitly exclude its applicability on the personnel appointed under the 1968 Adhiniyam, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present batch of Writ Petitions also are identical to a series of decisions and view taken by this Bench earlier and many of which happened to be in respect of many of the present Petitioners themselves, the impugned Order in the instant case also would not be sustainable and the Writ Petitions thus deserve to be and are accordingly allowed.

30. However, the allowing of the Writ Petitions and the quashment of the impugned Transfer Order would not preclude the State Authorities to pass a fresh order of transfer in the administrative exigencies in accordance with the provisions of law governing the field. The right of the either party to that extent is left open.

17

31. As a result, the impugned Order dated 4.9.2021 in respect of all the Petitioners is quashed and the Writ Petitions are allowed with consequences to follow.

Sd/-

                                                                 (P. Sam Koshy)
sharad                                                                 JUDGE