This judgment allowed multiple connected writ petitions challenging transfer orders of suspended police constables. The Court quashed orders transferring officers out of their ranges against earlier High Court precedents.
The transfer orders dated across late 2020 to early 2022 affecting multiple petitioners were quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 221/2021
Ram Niwas Bishnoi S/o Sh. Khema Ram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Satheran, Tehsil And District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 865/2021
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).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Shrawan Vishnoi S/o Sh. Babu Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1670/2021
(2 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
461, Rajendra Nagar, Bhalelao Road, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1677/2021
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.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1690/2021
Mangala Ram Rajpurohit S/o Shri Bheemaji Rajpurohit, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Post Munthalakaba, Bhinmal, Jalore.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4213/2021
Kunal Pandya S/o Mukesh Pandya, Aged About 33 Years, 2-N-6, Housing Board, Thana Kotwali, Banswara
----Petitioner
Versus
(3 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4620/2021
Babar Khan S/o Sh Jeenayat Khan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4622/2021
Madan Singh S/o Sh. Nathu Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Gadha Hatkiya, Raiki, Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4669/2021
Purushotam S/o Kevji, Aged About 53 Years, Chidiyawasa, District Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(4 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4671/2021
Bhanwar Lal S/o Chanchar Lal, Aged About 48 Years, Ward No.8, Metwala, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6113/2021
Basant S/o Shri Radheshyam Parasar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Badliyas, Tehsil Kotdi, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7229/2021
Sunil Bishnoi S/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village - Post Salori, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
(5 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7867/2022
Jagdish Kumar S/o Sh. Sadasukh Bishnoi, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 114, Near Karni Rajput Hostel, Ward No. 30, Nokha, Dist. Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| 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 |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
17/01/2023
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
(6 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11067/2021) on 10.02.2022, which reads as follows:
“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.
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.
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.
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.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) came to the following conclusion:-
“(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.
(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.
(7 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
(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.
(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?
(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.
(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.
(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
(8 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
employees out of their respective range, so that they cannot influence the investigation.
(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.
(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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The order dated 18.12.2020 (Annex.3) qua the petitioners are quashed and set aside. ”
Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to refute the applicability of the aforequoted order.
In light of aforequoted order, the present petitions are allowed. The transfer order dated 18.12.2020 (Annex.3) (in CW
(9 of 9)
[CW-221/2021]
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.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
61-73 Zeeshan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer or change of headquarters of suspended police constables out of their respective ranges violating earlier precedents.
What relief is available when a transfer order is contrary to statutory provisions and judicial precedents?
How should pending applications related to quashed transfer orders be disposed of?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Niwas Bishnoi
State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary Department Of Home Affairs Government Of Rajasthan Jaipur
Director General Of Police Headquarters Jaipur
Prashant Legha
Shrawan Vishnoi
Amit Kumar
Pusphendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
