Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devilal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47057]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1249/2021
1. Devilal S/o Shri Banwarilal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo
Dabli Rathan, Ward No. 15 Wass Molvi, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh.
2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Jagdish Chander, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ward No. 2 Pakka Bhadwan, Tehsil Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary
Department Of Home Affairs Govt. Of Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NR Budania
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 01/11/2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by an order dated 03.09.2021 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10353/2021: Subhash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"(35) As the appointing authority of Constable/Head-
Constable is the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned, consequent to their transfer under (Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 12:43:44 PM) (Downloaded on 03/11/2025 at 09:57:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47057] (2 of 4) [CW-1249/2021] 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 arepromoted, 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 (Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 12:43:44 PM) (Downloaded on 03/11/2025 at 09:57:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47057] (3 of 4) [CW-1249/2021] 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."
The Division Bench, on appeal, came to the conclusion that statutory provisions limit the transfer liability of the Constable and Head Constable within the district and the Assistant Sub Inspector within the Range.
So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents pertaining to the interpretation of the provisions is concerned, the Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench have taken into consideration the provisions of Rules and as such, the submissions made in this regard cannot be countenanced. Further submissions were attempted to be made by learned counsel for the respondents that present is not a case of transfer and the same is only a change of Headquarter and as such, the ratio in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) would not apply. A perusal of the judgment of Subhash Chandra (supra) as quoted hereinbefore would reveal that in para No.42 & 43, the Coordinate Bench has dealt with the said aspect and had negated the said submissions, therefore, the said aspect also is no more res integra. In view of the above discussion, following the judgments in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) and Surendra Khokhar (supra), the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The order dated 18.12.2020 (Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 12:43:44 PM) (Downloaded on 03/11/2025 at 09:57:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47057] (4 of 4) [CW-1249/2021] (Annex.3) qua the petitioners are quashed and set aside."
2. Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to refute the applicability of the aforequoted order.
3. In light of aforequoted order, the present petition is allowed.
The transfer order dated 18.12.2020 (Annex.3) qua the petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside.
4. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J 27-chhavi/-
(Uploaded on 03/11/2025 at 12:43:44 PM) (Downloaded on 03/11/2025 at 09:57:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)