Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Surendra Khokhar (Kumar) on 29 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
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
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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).
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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.
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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 (Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM) (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. (Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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 (Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM) (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.
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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.
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
(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 (Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM) (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 (Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM) (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/-
(Downloaded on 30/11/2021 at 09:00:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)