KRIPA SHANKAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner herein by which order dated 9.2.2019, passed by the Respondent No.2 has been challenged. By the said order, the Petitioner has been transferred from the post of SDO(P) Singrauli to SDO (P) Bina, District Sagar. The main ground for contesting the said order passed by the State is the order being a direct violation of the directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are as follows. The Petitioner was holding the substantive post of the Sub Divisional Officer of Police [hereinafter referred to as "SDO(P)"] Singrauli. Vide order dated 31.8.2017, the Petitioner has been transferred to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID), Sagar [hereinafter referred to as "DSP(CID)"]. The Petitioner joined the post of SdO(P) Singrauli on 01/09/17. It is the case of the Petitioner that during his period of posting at Singrauli, he has been working to the full satisfaction of the Department and that the Respondent No.5, S.P Singrauli has issued certificates of appreciation for the work done by the Petitioner during the 2018 Vidhan Sabha Elections in the State. By the impugned order, the Petitioner states that he has been transferred twice within a period of two years as the impugned order has been passed within one and a half years of the Petitioner's posting as SDO(P) at Singrauli. The Ld. counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the circular dated 14/02/17 at page 20 and has specifically drawn the attention of this Court to the provision therein whereby, the minimum tenure of a police personnel posted in a district, is two years. It also provided that in the event they need to be transferred before the expiry of the two-year term, then there must be an order of the Competent Authority upon whose orders, they can be transferred.

(3.) The Ld. counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 09/02/19 effects the transfer of 152 officers in the State including the Petitioner who finds himself at serial No.85. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the impugned order is in gross violation of the directions of the Supreme Court passed in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1. Specifically, Ld. counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 31 of the said judgment in which inter alia, the Supreme Court has directed that the Central and State Governments and the Union Territories shall comply with the directions given in paragraph 31 (of the judgement), till framing of the appropriate legislation. The minimum tenure for IG of Police and other officers, is the direction to which the attention of this Court has been drawn to specifically by the Ld. counsel for the Petitioner. Direction No.3 reads as herein under: