Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramkhiladi Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:4666]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11213/2023
Prakash Kumar S/o Shri Hajarimal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Village Khejariya Shivgang, District Sirohi. (Presently Assistant
Sub Inspector).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11209/2023
Sohanlal S/o Shri Ram Chandra Ji, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Village Saranau, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore. (Presently
Assistant Sub Inspector).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11216/2023
Kausar Hussain S/o Shri Shokat Hussain, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Jhupdi Road, Sarkari Hospital Ke Piche, Bhilo Ki Basti, Sirohi.
(Presently Head Constable No. 689).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
(Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 09:27:01 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:4666] (2 of 5) [CW-11213/2023]
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11218/2023
Moti Lal S/o Late Lachcha Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o House
No. 144 Hiragaro Ka Was, Mataji Ka Bara, Tehsil Bali, District
Pali. (Presently Head Constable No. 719).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11240/2023
Ram Lal S/o Shri Ladhu Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village
Kudi, Tehsil Pachpadhra, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,l
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11454/2023
Ramkhiladi Meena S/o Sh. Hajari Lal Meena, Aged About 38
Years, Kharla Ki Kothi, Dhani Kharla, Dist. Dausa.
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 09:27:02 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:4666] (3 of 5) [CW-11213/2023]
Versus
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 Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate,
Jodhpur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Headquarter And
Traffic, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NR Budania
Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa, AGC
Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 29/01/2024
1. Learned counsel for the parties at the outset submit that the controversy raised in the instant writ petitions 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.(Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 09:27:02 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:4666] (4 of 5) [CW-11213/2023] (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 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.
(Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 09:27:02 PM)[2024:RJ-JD:4666] (5 of 5) [CW-11213/2023] (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 counsel for the parties, 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.
409 to 414-devrajP/-
(Downloaded on 09/02/2024 at 09:27:02 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)