SALEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 12/13.11.1998, passed by respondent No. 2-Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Headquarters. U. P., Allahabad as also the earlier order of transfer dated 27.5.1998 be quashed.

(2.) The facts leading to the present writ petition, put in brief, are that the petitioner Salek Chand is a Sub-Inspector of Police and was transferred from district Bijnor to Hardwar. He joined at Police Station Manglor in district Hardwar on 8.7.1997. It is alleged that at the behest of respondent No. 3-Harpal Singh Sathi, who was a Member of Parliament from Parliamentary constituency. Hardwar, he was shifted to Police Station Kankhal in district Hardwar itself. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 4. Suresh Rathore, who is General. Secretary of U. P. Bhariya Janta Party and is resident of Shastri Nagar, Jwalapur Hardwar, was incensed as the petitioner was not prepared to oblige and help him in the case of some accused. He made frantic efforts to get the petitioner shifted from Kankhal Police Station but on account of Kumbh Mela, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hardwar did not accede to his request. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 wrote letters to the Chief Minister, U. P.. Lucknow on 20.4.1998 and 15.4.1998, copies of which are Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner was shifted in the Special Enquiry Cell, Hardwar and ultimately transferred from Hardwar to Allahabad. This order too was modified by diverting the petitioner from Allahabad to Lucknow. Thus, by the impugned order dated 27.5.1998, the petitioner was transferred from Hardwar to Lucknow. The petitioner, it is alleged, did not receive the order of transfer and while he was admitted in hospital due to his illness, he was shown to have been relieved in pursuance of the transfer order on 4.6.1998 and an entry to this effect was made in the general diary maintained at the Police Station. The impugned order of transfer dated 27.5.1998 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Misc. Writ No. 31123 of 1998, which was disposed of by this Court on 23.9.1998, Annexure-4, with the following order : "Against the impugned transfer order, the petitioner may make a representation to the authority concerned who shall decide the same within a month. Petition is disposed of," A representation, Annexure 5, was made to the respondent No. 2 on 26.9.1998 highlighting his personal difficulties that his two daughters are studying in Hardwar and that his transfer is the outcome, of the pressure exerted by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 on 13.11.1998. Annexure-6. It was observed that the petitioner could not support his contention by any documentary evidence that his transfer was effected on account of political pressure exerted by Harpal Singh Sathi, the then Member of Parliament. As regards the education of his daughters, it was pointed out that the education facilities available at Lucknow are far better and superior than Hardwar. The representation was rejected by further observing that it would not be proper from the administrative point of view to cancel the order of transfer of the petitioner.

(3.) Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In paragraph 4 Kha, it is maintained that the transfer of the petitioner was necessitated on account of the D. O. letter dated 19.4.1999 sent by S. P.. Hardwar who had informed that the petitioner had established his contacts with certain criminals, he is instrumental in getting certain crimes committed by the criminals who are under his protection and that the petitioner is creating impediments in the smooth working of the department. A copy of the confidential D. O. letter No. Ashu. 52/99 dated 29.4.1999 has been brought on record as Annexure-C. A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. The fact that the transfer of the petitioner was effected on account of political pressure, has been denied.