SUMAN SANYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a member of Indian Police Service lastly posted as Inspector General of Police (Telecommunication) is aggrieved by the Home (P & AR) Notification dated 30.9.92 placing his service at the disposal of the Public Undertaking Departments for appointment to the post of Managing Director, West Dinajpur Spinning Mills Ltd., with Head Office at Calcutta. Prior to that, vide wireless message dt. 10.9.92, his services were placed as Controller of Printing & Stationery. The petitioner challenges the order of transfer on the ground that it is not being made bona fide but in order to degrade him from his post of I.G. of Police by placing his services as Managing Director which was so long manned by an officer of the rank of West Bengal Civil Services. It is also contended that his consent as well as the consent of the Central Government was not taken prior to placing his service to P.U. Department for the above posting. The respondents have filed a reply contending that in view of Rule 6 of the Indian Police Services (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the petitioner can be deputed for services under a company which is wholly and substantially owned or controlled by the State Government in whose cadre he is home and for that purpose, no consent is necessary.

(2.) It is also submitted that the transfer has been made in the interest of public services and there is no mala fide motive on the part of the respondents to issue such transfer order. The petitioner has filed a Rejoinder to the Reply in which he has annexed the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission in their report on Public Sector Undertakings and the decision of the Government to such recommendations and our attention has 'been drawn that the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission have been approved by the Central Government with this observation that there would be no compulsory deputation of Government Officers to public sector undertakings and no officer should be sent to serve in them against his will. It is, therefore, submitted that when the petitioner is sought to be transferred on deputation as Managing Director of the Spinning Mills, his consent should be taken in view of the decision of the Central Government which must be treated to have supplemented Rule 6 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. To the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the State of West Bengal have also filed a reply to the said rejoinder controverting all above contentions raised in the rejoinder. It is also submitted that the administrative decision taken by the Central Government not being incorporated in the rules cannot prevail over the rules and, therefore, Rule 6 would prevail and the State Government, in view of Rule 6(2) of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 would be competent to transfer a member of the Indian Police Service to a company wholly controlled by the State Government.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Samir Kr. Ghosh, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Mitra, counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal. Ms. Uma Bhattacharya, counsel appearing for the Central Government has not filed any reply and submits that as it is a matter between the petitioner and the State of West Bengal, the Central Government does not wish to make any submission.