UMEDSINH BHAVANSINH SISODIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order of transfer passed by the respondent authority transferring the petitioner from Ahmedabad to Junagadh. THE petitioner has further prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 01.10.2001 and to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Unarmed Head Constable.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner who is a police constable since 1980 that in December 2000, when the then Superintending Police inspected the work place where the petitioner was performing his duties, he found that the petitioner was dressed in civil clothes for which an explanation was sought for. Thereafter, when the petitioner received his salary, he found that Rs. 20/- was deducted as fine for the said indiscipline. IT is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner asked for a receipt of the said fine, the same was not granted. The petitioner took up the said issue with the higher authorities in the form of letters and appeal but to no avail. IT is further the case of the petitioner that finally as a counter-blast to the appeals preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner was transferred from Ahmedabad to Junagadh vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

(3.) WHILE considering the quantum of punishment the role of the administrative authority is primary and that of the court is secondary confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused infringement of rights. I am of the view that this Court should not interfere with the administrative authority's decision on the quantum of punishment which in the present case is a tranfer order unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court. Discipline is the essential component for efficient functioning in case of the respondents and to maintain the same it would be open to the competent authority to impose punishment. Moreover, more than 11 years have passed and therefore this Court does not think it fit to cause any interference.