VIRENDER SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is an Officer belonging to H.P. Police Service, vide Annexure P1, notification dated 20th February, 2020, on placement as Superintendent of Police, was ordered to be posted as SP, SDRF, Junga, District Shimla. The Court stands informed that before the placement of petitioner, as such, he was serving as Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sirmour District at Nahan. Thereafter, vide notification dated 2nd June, 2020, Annexure P2, petitioner was ordered to be transferred from the post of SP, SDRF, Junga, District Shimla to the post of SP, PTC Daroh, District Kangra. This order, however, was, subsequently, modified and vide notification dated 8th June, 2020, Annexure P3, petitioner was ordered to be transferred to as Commandant, 4th IRBn Jungle Beri, District Hamirpur. In compliance to said order, petitioner joined at Jungle Beri, District Hamirpur, on 11th June, 2020.

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner is that within a short span of about two months, vide Annexure P9, notification dated 22nd August, 2020, he has again been transferred from his present place of posting at Jungle Beri to Kullu as Commandant Home Guards, which order, according to the petitioner, is in violation of the provisions of Section 12 of H.P. Police Act, 2007, read with Section 56 thereof. According to the petitioner, notification dated 22nd August, 2020, Annexure P9, has not been issued by the State either on account of any administrative exigency or in public interest, but the same has been issued just to accommodate the private respondent, whose husband also happens to be an Officer of Indian Police Service and who vide same notification, is ordered to be posted as Superintendent of Police Hamirpur. In this background, it has been prayed by the petitioner that as the impugned transfer order has been passed by the State by violating the provisions of Sections 12 and 56 of the H.P. Police Act, 2007, by ignoring the fact that petitioner is at the verge of superannuation as he was to superannuate on 31st May, 2021, the impugned notification be quashed and set aside.

(3.) As per report of the Registry, private respondent has not been served, however, learned Advocate General, on instructions, submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of private respondent in the petition, who adopts the reply filed on behalf of other respondents.