RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The thirty seven petitioners before this Court in the instant writ petition are either Head Constables, Exemptee Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors or Exemptee Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police who belong to different ranges of the Haryana police and were deputed to HAP or IRB or Commando to undergo six months Career Development Programme (CDP) as per their seniority in different districts/Ranges, parent-wise. The CDP policy is contained in Government letter dated 21.06.2007 which requires every Non-Gazetted Officer or Other Ranks to be deputed under CDP. The petitioners were transferred from their parent unit to 4th IRB, Manesar for six months training. The petitioners completed their six months CDP as certified by the Commandant 4th IRB, Manesar, Gurgaon vide letter dated 01.04.2013. The petitioners complain that despite having successfully undergone the CDP are still being retained in IRB, Manesar and have not been sent back to their parent units. It is their say that the policy dated 21.06.2007 and letter dated 17.08.2012 are not being followed and on the contrary the Director General of Police, Haryana is adopting a pick and choose policy of cancellation of transfer orders of those officials/officers who have political approach are being sent back to their parent districts/ranges and thus the petitioners are being discriminated against for adverse treatment. To redress their grievance, they have served a legal notice dated 01.06.2013 to the respondents which is still pending. On notice of motion being issued, the respondents have contested the case by filing written statement. It has been stated that the Police Act, 1994 and the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana clearly provide that the entire police establishment under the State Government is one integrated police force, though for the better administration the State is sub-divided in its geographical territory into Districts and Ranges.

(2.) Rule 1.5 of the Rules outlines the limits of jurisdiction and liability to transfer. The provision lays down that all police officers appointed and enrolled in either of the two general police districts constitute one police force and are liable to and legally empowered for, police duly within the province. No sub-division of the force territorially or by classes, such as mounted and foot police, affects this principle and every police officer is liable to serve at any place, whether within or outside the State of Haryana or any organization under the Central Government on being ordered so to do by the appointing authority. Rule 12.26 of Punjab Police Rules justifies Inter-district transfer. So does Rule 14.15(1) empower postings and transfers-liability. However, the seniority of Constables and Head Constables is maintained at District level and of ASIs and SIs at the Range level. The lien for the purpose of seniority of Constable/Head Constable is reckoned or decided within their own parent cadre. This means that though the police officials may remain posted anywhere in the State but their cadre and lien does not change. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Kashmir Singh and another has approved transfer liability of police officials/officers anywhere in the State of Haryana. No prejudice has been caused to such transferees since they retain their seniority in the parent District/Range.

(3.) It is explained that the petitioners were transferred in the 4th IRB at Manesar, Gurgaon on the request of the Inspector General of Police, IRB, Bhondsi for the effective supervision of the force at Manesar.