ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Baijnath, District kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dtd. 24/12/2024 (Annexure P-9) whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Atharv Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned transfer order of the petitioner, issued in violation of the transfer policy, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner stated that impugned transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of political interference and as such, needs to be interfered. He submitted that since petitioner ordered to issue Challan against son of M.L.A. of the area concerned, competent authority on the basis of recommendations made by M.L.A. of the area concerned, proceeded to pass impugned trans er order. While making this Court Peruse Sec. 12 of Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 (for short, 'the Act'), Mr. Sharma submi ed hat ordinarily the tenure of Sub-Divisional Police Officer (for sho t, 'SDPO') is of two yeaRs.and if an SDPO is to be transferred before expiry of two years, then reasons are to be recorded in writing in terms of provisions of the said Act, however, impugned transfer order nowhere suggests compliance of aforesaid procedure. He further submitted that as per Sec. 43 of the Act, administration of the Police throughout the State shall vest in the Director General of Police and State Government has no role whatsoever in the exercise of administrative power by Director General of Police, who is the only competent authority to issue transfer order of a Police Officer. While referring to Sec. 56 of the Act, Mr. Sharma submitted that otherwise also, transfer of the Police Officer can only be recommended by Police Establishment Committee headed by Director General of Police comprising of four senior police officers, not below rank of Inspector General of Police, nominated by the Director General of Police, but in the instant case, procedure as laid down in Ss. 12 and 56 of the Act has not been followed, rather merely on the dictate of a political person, respondents/State has proceeded to transfer the petitioner, who had yet not completed minimum tenure of two yeaRs.at the present place of posting.

(3.) To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General while justifying the impugned action of respondents vehemently argued that there is nothing to suggest that impugned transfer order has been passed on he recommendations of any political person, as alleged. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that impugned transfer of the petitioner has been effected on account of the fact that petiti ner herein had some altercation with the son of M.L.A. of the area concerned, rather, impugned transfer has been ordered on administrative grounds.