Disposed

Sub Inspector Umesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024/6812/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer and relieving order dispute involving a suspended police Sub-Inspector, the High Court did not quash the transfer but directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The Court ordered the authority to decide the representation within three weeks following mandatory guidelines pending inquiries.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to move fresh representation within one week; respondent directed to decide within three weeks considering due process.

Sub Inspector Umesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57986

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6812 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sub Inspector Umesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the opposite parties.

¶7

By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 14.8.2024 and the relieving order dated 17.8.2024 passed by the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 transferring the petitioner who is serving on the post of Sub-Inspector, Traffic from Lucknow Commissionerate to Varanasi Commissionerate.

¶8

By means of Annexure no. 2 the Deputy Commissioner of Police Head Quarter has fixed the date of relieving of the petitioner as 18.8.2024. Both the aforesaid orders have been passed after getting prior approval from the Police Establishment Board. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no. 5 which is the suspension order of the petitioner dated 18.6.2024 whereby on the serious allegations the petitioner was placed under suspension. Annexure no. 4 is a F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0202 of 2024 u/s 384 IPC, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, Gomtinagar, Lucknow whereby the F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner and other police personals by means of order dated 6.8.2024 (Annexure no. 6) the petitioner has been reinstated in service subject to the final outcome of the pending inquiry / judicial proceedings. Learned counsel has drawn attention towards Annexure no. 7 which is a Circular dated 28.3.2024 wherein vide para 3 it has been categorically indicated that while transferring any employee on the administrative ground or in public interest the modalities of D.O. Letter dated 22.6.2017 would be considered. D.O. letter dated 22.6.2017 has been enclosed as Annexure no. 8 wherein under the heading of 'Prashashnik Sthanantaran' it has been categorically indicated that if any departmental proceeding is pending against any government employee and he is transferred from one place to another, the allegations, so levelled against him shall be

¶9

scrutinized carefully and is such allegations are liable to be established against the employee only then any order may be passed considering that fact. However, in the impugned order the aforesaid guideline / a modality of the D.O. letter has not been considered and the petitioner has been transferred in public interest from Lucknow Commissionerate to Varanasi Commissionerate.

¶10

Sri S.P. Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. has submitted that the Police Establishment Board is the competent authority to grant approval in respect of transfer of police personal and all relevant material including the government orders or D.O. letter are placed before the Police Establishment Board seeking transfer and after perusing those material the Police Establishment Board either gives approval or does not give approval but since in the present case the transfer order has been passed against the petitioner after getting prior approval from the Police Establishment Board, thus, there is no nullity or illegality in the impugned order. Sri Singh has further submitted that if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he may approach the competent authority but the impugned transfer has been passed strictly in accordance with law.

¶11

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the issue, the petitioner is permitted to move a fresh representation within a week before the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Upper Police Maha Nideshak, Traffic and Road Safety, U.P. Police Head Quarter, Lucknow taking all his pleas and grounds and enclosing his earlier representations along with all relevant documents. If such a representation is moved the opposite party concerned is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner with speaking and reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, say within a period of three weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶12

The decision on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.It is needless to say that while passing the appropriate order the competent authority shall consider the aforesaid modalities being indicated in the D.O. Letter dated 22.6.2017.

¶13

Writ petition is finally disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Om

¶15

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶16

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sub Inspector Umesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sub Inspector Umesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Kumar Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Development Deptt. Lko and Another

Syed Shakeel Ahmad Rizvi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy., Public Works Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Gopal Chandra Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Sub Inspector Umesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Sharda Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others