Disposed

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 5 Others

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2020WRIA/6619/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a transfer order from Varanasi to Fatehpur Zone in Police Radio department. Court held matter pending with competent authority to decide on representation regarding transfer powers before this writ court.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider petitioner's representation regarding transfer within two weeks via reasoned order; stay on action for non-joining.

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. through… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6619 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhishek Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.S. Bundeli, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶6

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the transfer order dated 13th July, 2020, whereby he has been transferred from Varanasi Zone to Fatehpur Zone by the State Radio Officer, whereas the power is vested with the Deputy Inspector of General Police (Telecom).

¶7

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as Head Operator (Mechanical) in the Department of Police Radio, therefore, he submits that in the absence of recommendations of Deputy Inspector General of Police, his transfer order is absolutely without any authority. He has taken the Court to the transfer order passed at the instance of the police establishment board only and there is no recommendations by Deputy Inspector General of Police. He argues that even if there is board's recommendations, the power of transfer is vested with the Deputy Inspector General of Police.

¶8

In this regard, he has brought certain replies received by him under Right to Information Act, 2015 regarding power of police authority qua transfer and appointment and he submits that Appendix-P clearly speaks of the power vested with the Inspector General of Police as well as Deputy Inspector General of Police and in this regard he has also made a detailed representations on 15th July, 2020 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom), a copy of which has also been brought on record.

¶9

Per contra , learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as per the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Sub-ordinate Officers' Service Rules, 2015, the appointing authority is State Radio Officer and, therefore, he argues that once an authority is an appointing

¶10

authority it has right to transfer as well and the petitioner cannot claim that the appointing authority cannot transfer him.

¶11

It has also been argued by the learned Standing Counsel that Police Establishment Board has made recommendations on 13th July, 2020 regarding transfer of the petitioner and Deputy Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Police, who are the members of the board and, therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner is not tenable and there should be no confusion regarding powers of transfer to the employees of Police Department from one Zone to another Zone.

¶12

Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already approached the authority by making representation regarding his grievance, in the opinion of the Court, the matter can be looked into and be considered and decided by competent authority, in the first instance, namely, Deputy Inspector General of Police.

¶13

In such circumstances, this petition is disposed with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order within a period of two weeks from today and in the meanwhile, if the petitioner has not already joined on the transferred place, no action shall be taken against him for not joining as he claims to be on medical leave, until final decision is taken by the authority.

¶14

It is provided that a copy of the order available on the official website of the High Court will be taken to be authentic one and certified copy shall be submitted by the petitioner as and when it is issued.

¶15

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the competent authority within 24 hours.

¶16

Order Date :- 28.9.2020 Atmesh

¶17

Digitally signed by AJIT KUMAR Date: 2020.09.28 17:36:27 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Kant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Ranjeet Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division and 5 Others

Azhar Sultan Ahmad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Momin Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another