U P KANGAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is a public interest petition filed by the Mayor of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation making a grievance against interference by the Ministers of the State of Gujarat in due discharge of duties by the upright and responsible police officers like respondent No. 9-Shri Satish Varma and challenging the order of transfer of respondent No. 9 from Rajkot as illegal, mala fide and as a result of undue interference shown by respondent No. 4-Shri Vithalbhai Radadiya and respondent No. 5-Shri Popat Jinzaria, both Ministers of the State of Gujarat and also to direct the respondent Government to issue guidelines as to what extent the instructions of Ministers and/or M.L.As. be legitimately followed or passed on the civil servant and also for providing guidelines for channel for politicians and M.L.As. and Ministers for issuing instructions to the civil servants not belonging to their department.

(2.) The petition filed by the first citizen of Rajkot is founded allegations of two specific incidents in respect of which it is alleged that respondent No. 9 did not follow the illegal instructions issued by and at the behest of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that respondent No. 9 being a upright police officer has followed his call of duty and declined to act otherwise than in accordance with law and, therefore, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sought to punish respondent No. 9 and succeeded in getting respondent No. 9 transferring out by prevailing over respondent No. 2 and the State Government machinery. It is submitted that respondent No. 9 might have taken the transfer in his stride but it did give a signal to the other officers that if they do not toe the illegal instructions and attempts of the Ministers and M.L.As., how they would be dealt with and it has been a premium to the violators of law who were earlier under constant vigilant control of respondent No. 9.

(3.) The incidents in question referred to by the petitioner are as under :- The first incident relates to an offence registered at Dhoraji Police Station as C. R. No. 168 of 1997 against Shri Ranchhod Koyani under S.307 I.P.C. for attempt to murder Vinoo Gordhanbhai Antala. Respondent No. 9 arrested the said accused on 16-6-1997. According to the petitioner, the accused is the President of Dhoraji Municipality, i.e., from an area where respondent No. 4-Shri Radadiya hails as an M.L.A. and both belong to the ruling party, hence the police authorities were instructed not to arrest the said offender; but respondent No. 9 discharged his duty fearlessly and arrested the said accused on 16-6-1997 in connection with the aforesaid offence, and, therefore, as mentioned in the newspapers reports, respondent No. 4 was offended by the aforesaid arrest of Shri Koyani. The second incident relates to C. R. No. 25 of 1997 registered with Vankaner Police Station. One Devshi Valji Sapara of Zudakhada village of Vankaner Taluka and one Hussein Ali of Mesaria village of Vankaner Taluka were accused of power theft to the tune of Rs. 45,000.00. Hence, the Deputy Executive Engineer of the Gujarat Electricity Board lodged the aforesaid complaint on 8-1-1997 for the offences punishable under S.379 of I.P.C. and S.39 of the Indian Electricity Act. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid offence was being investigated by P.S.I. Shri Solanki who found that sufficient evidence existed against the aforesaid two accused. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 5 who is a Minister and who hails as a M.L.A., from Vankaner has seen to it that respondent No. 6-Director General of Police posted P.S.I. Shri C. L. Gurkha on the aforesaid post in place of Shri Solanki, in contravention of the normal practice that a P.S.I. is assigned to a district and then the D.S.P. gives him a detailed posting. However, respondent No. 6 straightaway transferring and posted P.S.I. Shri Gurkha to the Vankaner Police Station. It is submitted that respondent No. 5 was thus instrumental in getting Shri Gurkha posted at Vankaner and the said P.S.I. remained under supervision of respondent No. 5 hailing from Vankaner. It is further alleged that respondent No. 5 did not rest content with the aforesaid transfer, but wielding his influence with respondent No. 2, the then Chief Minister of the State, got Shri C. J. Chavda, Officer on Special Duty (Respondent No. 8) in the office of the then Chief Minister to issue letter dated 13-5-1997 directly to Shri Gurkha, P.S.I., Vankaner and District Superintendent of Police, Rajkot (Respondent No. 9) for filing "C" summary in respect of the aforesaid Criminal Case No. C. R. 25 of 1997. A copy of the letter was also shown to the Court at the time of hearing. The letter reads as under :- No. UMK-NVS-397 Office of the Chief Minister, Sardar Bhavan, Sachivalaya, Block No. 1, 5th Floor, Gandhinagar-382010. C. J. Chavda 13 May 1997 Officer on Special Duty, A police case is filed against Shri Devshibhai Valjibhai Sapara of Judakhada village and against Shri Husseinbhai Alibhai of Mesaria village of Vakaner Taluka in Rajkot District. "C" summary be filed in the said case and the compliance be reported to this office. Sd/- (C. J. Chavda) Officer on Special Duty To, The District Suptd. of Police, Rajkot Rural, Rajkot. It is further stated that since respondent No. 9 had found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the aforesaid two accused, respondent No. 9 instructed P.S.I. Shri Gurkha, In-charge of Vankaner Police Station not to follow the aforesaid instructions contained in the letter dated May 13, 1997 of respondent No. 8 Shri C. J. Chavda and respondent No. 9 further instructed Shri Gurkha to proceed in accordance with law and not to file "C" summary as there was sufficient evidence against the aforesaid two accused. It is further averred that Shri Gurkha was eager and willing to oblige the Minister - respondent No. 5 hailing from Vankaner and, therefore, he did not carry out the instructions issued by respondent No. 9 but proceeded to file "C" summary in the aforesaid criminal case. Hence, respondent No. 9 suspended Shri Gurkha on July 9, 1997. The petitioner has averred that on account of the allegiance owed by Shri Gurkha to respondent No. 5 sitting Minister, not only respondent No. 5, but even the Home Secretary (Respondent No. 3), the Director General of Police (Respondent No. 6) and Deputy Inspector General of Police (Respondent No. 7) also issued instructions in writing to respondent No. 9 to review and revoke the suspension order of aforesaid Shri Gurkha. It is further submitted that respondent No. 9 has been acting in a upright and firm manner and did not succumb to the aforesaid pressures.