MADHU K V Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Untimely transfers would undoubtedly cause unrest, umbrage and above all, unbounded difficulties and inconveniences to service personnel. At times, the transferring authorities use the power of transfer as a weapon to wield at erring employees in lieu of initiation of disciplinary proceedings and sometimes, it is used to accommodate favourites. Recognizing recurrence of such profane exercise of transfer-power and with a view to eliminate the element of arbitrariness in its exercise and to have a uniform policy as far as possible Government have formulated norms and framed guidelines to be followed by transferring authorities in the matter of transfer. General transfer, transfer on public or administrative grounds, punishment transfer and request transfer are various known forms of transfer. Courts cannot adopt nonchalance when circumstances call for such interference and at times, may also have to lift the veil to see its real nature. With this prelude, I may examine the contentions raised by the petitioners in all these writ petitions wherein some enmasse transfers of police personnel involve.

(2.) As per Exts.P1 and P2 in W.P.(C)No.17475 of 2011, 226 Police personnel belonging to Grades of Assistant Sub Inspectors (GASIs), Senior Civil Police Officers (Sr.CPOs) and Civil Police Officers (CPOs) were transferred on administrative ground to different stations. The petitioners are some of such transferees. In W.P.(C) No.17293 of 2011 Exts.P1, P2 and P3 transfer orders issued on administrative ground are under challenge. In fact, Exts.P1 and P2 are the very same orders which are under challenge in W.P.(C) No.17475 of 2011. Ext.P3 is an order issued on the same day whereby 20 Sr.WCPOs and WCPOs were transferred on administrative ground. In W.P.(C)No.17465 of 2011 Exts.P1 and P2 are the orders under challenge. As per Ext.P1, 20 Police personnel were transferred and as per Ext.P2, 12 Police Officers belonging to the cadres of Senior Women Civil Police Officers (Sr.WCPOs) and Women Civil Police Officers (WCPOs) are placed under orders of transfer to different police stations. Unlike the impugned orders in W.P.(C)No.17475 of 2011 Exts.P1 and P2 in this writ petition did not carry any statement that they were issued on administrative ground. In W.P.(C)No.17292 of 2011 Exts.P1 and P2 are the impugned orders of transfer. 18 Sr.CPOs and CPOs were placed under orders of transfer as per Exts.P1 and P2. In W.P.(C)No.17472 of 2011 Ext.P1 order of transfer is challenged by the petitioners. As per the same, 56 Police Officers of Sr.CPOs/CPOs ranks were transferred. In W.P.(C) No.17716 of 2011 the petitioners are challenging Ext.P1 order of transfer. As per Ext.P1, 270 Police officers belonging to different cadres viz., GASIs, Sr.CPOs and CPOs were transferred to different stations or wings. In W.P.(C)No.17840 of 2011 the petitioners challenge Ext.P1 order of transfer. As per Ext.P1, 200 Police officers belonging to the cadres of Sr.CPOs and CPOs were placed under orders of transfer. Thus, it is obvious that the impugned transfer orders in W.P.(C)Nos.17475 and 17293 of 2011 are issued on administrative ground whereas the orders assailed in the other writ petitions are not avowed transfer orders on administrative ground. In the circumstances, for the sake of convenience, I will deal with the orders of transfer in W.P.(C)Nos.17475 and 17293 of 2011 a little later.

(3.) As regards the impugned orders in the other writ petitions, in the absence of anything in them suggesting the reason as administrative or public grounds the respondents cannot be heard to contend that those orders are passed on administrative or public ground. Evidently, Police officers belonging to different ranks such as GASIs, Sr.CPOs, CPOs, Sr.WCPOs and WCPOs were transferred enmasse by the impugned transfer orders. There can be no doubt with respect to the position of law that a reason which is conspicuously absent in an impugned order cannot be supplemented by way of an affidavit. Therefore, I will have to proceed with these cases on the premise that the impugned orders therein are issued on other grounds. The said orders did not partake the character of punishment transfers or transfers on request. Therefore, I am constrained to consider the norms issued by the respondents in the matter of transfer and also the relevant provisions under the Kerala Police Act, 2011 to see whether they satisfy the salient features of a general transfer. Section 97 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short the Act') deals with minimum tenure of Police officers. Section 97 (1) of the Act provides that the Government shall ensure a minimum tenure of two years for Police officers belonging to the categories specifically mentioned thereunder. Since the petitioners in these writ petitions are not belonging to the said specified categories therein, I need not look into the said provision for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions. I may, now, refer to Section 97(2) of the Act and the same reads thus:-