VIRENDRA PRATAP NAYYAR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel and perused the records.

(2.) Present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order Of transfer passed by the Inspector General of Police concerned transferring the petitioner from one place to another place. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of transfer could not have been passed by the D.I.G keeping in view the mandate of Prakash Singh's case Prakash Singh v. Union of India. According to case of Prakash Singh, 2006 (8) SCC1 (supra) transfer could have been done only by the Police Establishment Board constituted by the State Government. Admittedly, the impugned order has not been passed by the Police Establishment Board.

(3.) Though learned Standing counsel tried to defend his cause stating that the order of transfer has been passed within the range by the Deputy Inspector General of Police under Para 520 of the U.P. Police Regulation, but a plain reading of the judgment of Prakash Singh v. Union of India (supra) shows that their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court had not differentiated the transfer of police officer either within the range or outside the range.