S. N. PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the pleadings are complete, parties made request for hearing the matter finally, accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) By the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure-P/1) whereby, the petitioner has been directed to be transferred from the post of SDO(P), Patan, Jabalpur to Deputy Superintendent of Police, AJAK, Jabalpur. The order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the same has been passed in contravention of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh & Others Vs. Union of India & Others [(2006) 8 SCC 1]. It is also assailed on the ground that the order of transfer of the petitioner is illegal as the petitioner has been transferred twice within a period of almost 1- 1/2 years and at the present place of posting he has hardly completed six months. The order has also been assailed on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of the transfer policy framed by the State Government on 14.02.2007 in pursuance to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra). The petitioner has also relied upon the decision of Prakash Singh (supra) and also the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.8019 of 2016 [Manoj Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Others]; W.P. No. 3287 of 2019 [Dr. Kripa Shankar Dwivedi Vs. State of M.P. & Others]; and W.P. No. 3911/2019 [Sudhakar Baraskar Vs. State of M.P. & Others].

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3/State, relying upon the reply filed by the State, has contended that the order impugned in respect of transfer of the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of the policy dated 14.02.2007 and that has been done in pursuance to the recommendation made by the Police Establishment Board as constituted by the State Government pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra). The learned counsel for the respondents/State further submits that the shifting of the petitioner though within the period of two years, infact, cannot be considered to be a transfer but it is a shifting within the District and, therefore, the bar as provided under the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra) and also in the Policy dated 14.02.2007 is not applicable. The learned State counsel has also relied upon the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.6347 of 2012 [Prateek Roy Vs. Secretary, State of M.P. & Others]; and W.P. No.3640 of 2019 [Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of M.P. & Others].