Allowed

Ram Niwas Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2023CW/221/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed multiple writ petitions filed by suspended police personnel. The court quashed transfer orders that relocated them out of their respective districts or ranges without consent, ruling such changes violate statutory provisions and established precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer orders dated between 2020 and 2022 qua the respective petitioners are quashed and set aside. All pending applications are disposed of.

Ram Niwas Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

(1 of 9)

¶2

[CW-221/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/2021

¶5

Ram Niwas Bishnoi S/o Sh. Khema Ram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Satheran, Tehsil And District Nagaur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Director General Of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur.

¶10

The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 865/2021

¶14

Prashant Legha S/o Shri Jagmohan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Chawla Chowk, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Govt. Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶18

The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶19

The Additional Director General Of Police (Vigilance), Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶20

The Inspector General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶21

The Inspector General Of Police, Range, Bikaner Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

¶22

The Superintendent Of Police, District Sri Ganganagar, (Rajasthan).

¶23

The Superintendent Of Police, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

Shrawan Vishnoi S/o Sh. Babu Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o

¶26

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1670/2021

¶27

(2 of 9)

¶28

[CW-221/2021]

¶29

461, Rajendra Nagar, Bhalelao Road, Pali.

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶33

The Director General Of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, Jodhpur. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1677/2021

¶36

Amit Kumar S/o Shri Birbal Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Vpo Khetolai, Tehsil Pokran District Jaisalmer. At Present Working As Constable No. 951 (Under Suspension) Posted At Reserve Police Line Jaisalmer.

¶37

----Petitioner

¶38

Versus

¶39

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶40

Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.

¶41

Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.

¶42

----Respondents

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1690/2021

¶44

Mangala Ram Rajpurohit S/o Shri Bheemaji Rajpurohit, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Post Munthalakaba, Bhinmal, Jalore.

¶45

----Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶48

The Director General Of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur.

¶49

The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, Jodhpur. 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore.

¶50

----Respondents

¶51

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4213/2021

¶52

Kunal Pandya S/o Mukesh Pandya, Aged About 33 Years, 2-N-6, Housing Board, Thana Kotwali, Banswara

¶53

----Petitioner

¶54

Versus

¶55

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department

¶56

(3 of 9)

¶57

[CW-221/2021]

¶58

Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶59

The Director General Of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur

¶60

The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur 4. The Superintendent Of Police, Banswara

¶61

----Respondents

¶62

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4620/2021

¶63

Babar Khan S/o Sh Jeenayat Khan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Banswara.

¶64

----Petitioner

¶65

Versus

¶66

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶67

The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter Jaipur.

¶68

The Additional Director General Of Police (Vigilance), Police Head Quarter Jaipur.

¶69

The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range Udaipur. 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Banswara.

¶70

----Respondents

¶71

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4622/2021

¶72

Madan Singh S/o Sh. Nathu Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Gadha Hatkiya, Raiki, Dungarpur.

¶73

----Petitioner

¶74

Versus

¶75

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶76

The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter Jaipur.

¶77

The Additional Director General Of Police (Vigilance), Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.

¶78

The Inspector Gegneral Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.

¶79

The Superintendent Of Police, Banswara.

¶80

----Respondents

¶81

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4669/2021

¶82

Purushotam S/o Kevji, Aged About 53 Years, Chidiyawasa, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶83

----Petitioner

¶84

Versus

¶85

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶86

The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter Jaipur.

¶87

(4 of 9)

¶88

[CW-221/2021]

¶89

The Additional Director General Of Police (Vigilance), Police Head Quarter Jaipur.

¶90

The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.

¶91

The Superintendent Of Police, Banswara.

¶92

----Respondents

¶93

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4671/2021

¶94

Bhanwar Lal S/o Chanchar Lal, Aged About 48 Years, Ward No.8, Metwala, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.

¶95

----Petitioner

¶96

Versus

¶97

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶98

The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter Jaipur.

¶99

The Additional Director General Of Police (Vigilance), Police Head Quarter Jaipur.

¶100

The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur. 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Banswara.

¶101

----Respondents

¶102

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6113/2021

¶103

Basant S/o Shri Radheshyam Parasar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Badliyas, Tehsil Kotdi, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

¶104

----Petitioner

¶105

Versus

¶106

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶107

The Superintendent Of Police, District Chittorgarh (Raj.). 3. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶108

----Respondents

¶109

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7229/2021

¶110

Sunil Bishnoi S/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village - Post Salori, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶111

----Petitioner

¶112

Versus

¶113

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶114

The Additional Director General Of Police (Vigilance), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶115

The Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate Of

¶116

(5 of 9)

¶117

[CW-221/2021]

¶118

Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

¶119

The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Headquarter And Traffic, Jodhpur.

¶120

----Respondents

¶121

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7867/2022

¶122

Jagdish Kumar S/o Sh. Sadasukh Bishnoi, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 114, Near Karni Rajput Hostel, Ward No. 30, Nokha, Dist. Bikaner.

¶123

----Petitioner

¶124

Versus

¶125

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶126

The Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur.

¶127

The Additional Director General Of Police (Vigilance), Jaipur.

¶128

The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner. 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner.

¶129

----Respondents

¶130

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sushil Solanki Mr. Trilok Joshi & Mr. Anil Choudhary Mr. S.S. Gour Mr. Devendra Sanwalot Mr. Vivek Firoda with Mr. Jayram Saran
	Mr. O.P. Sangwa
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa

¶131

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶132

Order

¶133

17/01/2023

¶134

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy is squarely covered by the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Dinesh Kumar Vs. State

¶135

(6 of 9)

¶136

[CW-221/2021]

¶137

of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11067/2021) on 10.02.2022, which reads as follows:

¶138

“These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 18.12.2020 (Annex.3), whereby, the Headquarter of the petitioners during the period of suspension has been changed from Churu to Sri Ganganagar.

¶139

The respondents by order dated 18.12.2020, inter-alia indicating that as it has come to the notice that in most of the cases, the suspended policemen have their Headquarter in the same Range/Unit, resulting in an apprehension that they may affect the cases and, therefore, their Headquarters be changed and consequently, the Headquarter of the petitioners has been changed.

¶140

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that issue regarding the change of of Headquarter of persons like petitioners, who are Head Constable stands squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10353/2021, decided on 03.09.2021, which order has been upheld by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Surendra Khokhar: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.610/2021, decided on 29.11.2021.

¶141

Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to make submissions that the order in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra), as upheld by the Division Bench, is contrary to the provisions of the Rule. However, it was conceded that the seniority of Head Constable is being maintained at District Level.

¶142

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) came to the following conclusion:-

¶143

“(35) As the appointing authority of Constable/HeadConstable is the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned, consequent to their transfer under consideration, the Constables and Head-Constables will be required to receive instructions/directions from the Superintendent of Police of the district in which they have been transferred and as a natural corollary of their transfer, their appointing authority, so also the disciplinary authority will be changed.

¶144

(36) Such action of the respondents cannot be countenanced as the Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority of an employee cannot be changed without his/her consent.

¶145

(7 of 9)

¶146

[CW-221/2021]

¶147

(37) The transfers made vide order under challenge are, on the one hand, contrary to the statutory provisions and judgments of this Court and on the other hand reflective of non-application of mind.

¶148

(38) This Court fails to comprehend that if any disciplinary action is to be taken against a transferred Constable/Head Constable, then, who will be the competent authority to initiate the enquiry? Subhash Chandra (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10353/2021), being a Constable (General Duty), has been transferred from Jaisalmer to G.R.P., Ajmer; his disciplinary authority prior to the impugned transfer was Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer. May be, as per the stand of the respondents, his seniority will remain as per his seniority in Jaisalmer, but what would happen if the persons junior to him posted in Jaisalmer are promoted, whereas no promotional avenues are available in G.R.P., Ajmer. Will he still be given promotion?

¶149

(39) That apart, if due to any delinquency, a disciplinary action is proposed to be taken against the said Constable (Subhash Chandra), whether the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer will be the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings or the Superintendent of Police at Ajmer! (40) There are many more related or ancillary questions attached with such transfer, such as; at which place the service record of the transferred employees will be kept, who will deal with leave applications etc. of the transferred Constable/HeadConstables and A.S.Is? The Rules of 1989 are silent in this regard. The hiatus, if any, cannot be filled by the administrative orders.

¶150

(41) According to this Court, transfers affected by the impugned order, shunting petitioners even out of range, would entail more complications than serving the cause of administration; let alone, the inconvenience caused to the petitioners.

¶151

(42) During the course of submission, learned Additional Advocate General apprised the Court that most of the petitioners are facing cases of anti-corruption and hence, in the interest of better administration, the respondent No.2 has decided to transfer these

¶152

(8 of 9)

¶153

[CW-221/2021]

¶154

employees out of their respective range, so that they cannot influence the investigation.

¶155

(43) This Court feels that the same cannot be a reason or ground to transfer a Constable/Head-Constable or even an A.S.I. out of his range. Such stand reflects State’s lack of confidence in the officers and investigating agencies.

¶156

(44) As an outcome of the discussion foregoing, these writ petitions deserve to be, and are hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 05.08.2021, qua each of the petitioners, whose names are mentioned in the schedule, including that of Subhash Chandra, is quashed.”

¶157

The Division Bench, on appeal, came to the conclusion that statutory provisions limit the transfer liability of the Constable and Head Constable within the district and the Assistant Sub Inspector within the Range.

¶158

So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents pertaining to the interpretation of the provisions is concerned, the Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench have taken into consideration the provisions of Rules and as such, the submissions made in this regard cannot be countenanced.

¶159

Further submissions were attempted to be made by learned counsel for the respondents that present is not a case of transfer and the same is only a change of Headquarter and as such, the ratio in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) would not apply.

¶160

A perusal of the judgment of Subhash Chandra (supra) as quoted hereinbefore would reveal that in para No.42 & 43, the Coordinate Bench has dealt with the said aspect and had negated the said submissions, therefore, the said aspect also is no more res integra.

¶161

In view of the above discussion, following the judgments in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) and Surendra Khokhar (supra), the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed.

¶162

The order dated 18.12.2020 (Annex.3) qua the petitioners are quashed and set aside. ”

¶163

Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to refute the applicability of the aforequoted order.

¶164

In light of aforequoted order, the present petitions are allowed. The transfer order dated 18.12.2020 (Annex.3) (in CW

¶165

(9 of 9)

¶166

[CW-221/2021]

¶167

No.221/2021; order dated 18.12.2020 (Annex.P./7) (in CW No.865/2021); order dated 19.01.2021 (Annex.1) (in CW No.1670/2021); order dated 19.01.2021 (Annex.4) (in CW No.1677/2021); order dated 19.01.2021 (Annex.1) (in CW No.1690/2021; order dated 05.01.2021 (Annex.1) (in CW No.4213/2021); orders dated 04.01.2021 (Annex.2) and 05.01.2021 (Annex.3) (in CW No.4620/2021); order dated 09.12.2022 (Annex.3) (in CW No.4622/2021); orders dated 04.01.2021 (Annex.2) and 05.01.2021 (Annex.3) (in CW No.4669/2021; orders dated 04.01.2021 (Annex.2) and 05.01.2021 (Annex.3) (in CW No.4671/2021); order dated 06.10.2020 (Annex.3) (in CW No.6113/2021); orders dated 19.04.2021 (Annex.4) and 22.04.2021 (Annex.5) (in CW No.7229/2021; and order dated 04.02.2022 (Annex.2) (in CW No.7867/2022) qua the petitioners are quashed and set aside.

¶168

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶169

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶170

61-73 Zeeshan

Ram Niwas Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taruna Vs State of Rajasthan

Pay Sense Service India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Dhana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prashant Legha Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Bishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagirath Godara Vs State of Rajasthan