CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12900 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 02, 2010 EHC Sahab Ram and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Amit Khatkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners complain that they have been transferred out of their parent range/District to different range/District out of cadre, which is violative of provisions of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Haryana (for short, “the Rules”). They have, thus, approached this Court to impugn their respective orders of transfer. As per the petitioners, the controversy in regard to the power of the respondents to transfer police persons out of their range or District has been settled by this Court and in this regard reference CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12900 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: is made to a decision in CWP No.2326 of 1996 (Ashok Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana), decided by Division Bench of this Court, holding that transfer of members of Haryana Police Force belonging to District Police Cadre to Haryana Armed Police, which is a separate cadre, is in violation of the Rules. Reference is also made to number of other decisions rendered by this Court. The respondents have filed a written statement. It is stated that the petitioners and many other officials, who were posted in the Hansi Area, were unable to check the crime and to create confidence in general public. It is also stated that due to some vested interest, the petitioners are interested and are attempting to remain at Hansi. They have allegedly been under the influence of Members of the Khap Panchayats with whom they have developed relations because of their long span of service. In view of these circumstances and to avoid another `Mirchpur type incident', a decision has been taken to overhaul the administration in police establishment in Hansi Sub Division. The petitioners, therefore, have been transferred in public interest. It is specifically stated that their seniority will be kept within the parent range and this transfer would not disturb their seniority in any manner. The respondents would also make reference to some decisions and ultimately would rely upon a latest decision in Special Leave Petition Nos.8690-8701 of 2010 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Kashmir Singh and another etc. etc.), decided on 6.10.2010. In the above noted appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with various order passed by this Court that Constable, Head Constable, ASI and SI could not be transferred out of their CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12900 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: District/Range respectively. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after making elaborate reference to various provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Haryana, has held that this Court has taken a totally impracticable view of the matter. It is further observed that if this view of the High Court is to prevail, great difficulty will be created for the State Administration and since it will not be able to transfer/deploy its police force from one place, where there may be a relative peace, to another District or region/range in the State where there may be disturbed law and order situation and hence, requirement of more police. It is further observed that the Court should not interfere with purely administrative matters except where absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other legal rights of the citizens. As noted by the Supreme Court, the State Administration can not function with its hand tied by the judiciary behind its back and that there has to be some free play of joints provided to the executives. While dealing with the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made reference to the provisions of the Police Act, defining Police districts, general police districts, constitution of the force and the power of the Inspector General in regard to administration of police through out a general police district etc. Reference is also made to Rule 1.4 of the Rules, which defines administrative divisions. As per this Rule, Districts of the province are grouped in ranges and the administration of all police within each such range, being vested in Deputy Inspector General under the over all control of the Inspector General of Police. As is observed, every police officer shall be liable to serve at any place, whether within or outside the State of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12900 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: Haryana and in any organization under the Central Government on being ordered so do by the appointing authority. On the basis of these provisions, it is observed that transfer can be done from one district to another district or even to another range and there is absolutely no prohibition for doing so. In such a case, however, the seniority of the Constable and Head Constable at District level and of ASI and SI at the range level is maintained in the parent district/range despite the transfer and the promotion and confirmation is also given strictly as per the seniority in the parent district/range level. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service and the Court should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. Rather, it is observed that the transfer and posting of police men must be left in the discretion of the concerned State authority, which are in the best position to assess the necessity of administrative requirement of the situation. These, being purely administrative matter, the Court must not ordinarily interfere in administrate matter and should maintain judicial restraint. Reference in this regard is made to the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is hardly any scope now left for interference in transfer of police officials, even if it be out of range or district. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and it is so ordered. November 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE