IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1195 of 2009. Date of decision: 22.5.2009 Sh.Krishan Chand …. Petitioner Versus Director General of Police & Ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Ashwani Pathak, Advocate For the respondent: Shri R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with S/Sh.R.M.Bisht and Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate Generals for the respondents No.1 and 2 _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed that the orders dated 31.1.2009, 10.3.2009 and 13.3.2009 may be quashed and set aside. By means of order annexure P-E dated 31.1.2009, the petitioner was transferred from District Bilaspur to 1st IRB, Bangarh. On 10.3.2009, he was temporarily attached with 3rd IRB, Pandoh for deployment in Chamba. Vide final order dated 13.3.2009, he was deployed on rotational basis at 2 Sewa Bridge in District Chamba. The petitioner has averred that he has been transferred a number of times in a short span and according to the petitioner, he is suffering from medical ailments due to which it is not possible for him to serve in hard and remote areas like the District to which he has been presently posted. Allegations of mala fides have also be leveled. In the reply filed on the affidavit of the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, it is stated that the petitioner had represented against the order of his transfer annexure P-E to the Director General of Police, on 24.2.2009 but since the petitioner joined the new place of posting on 12.3.2009, no action was called for on the said representation. We are not at all happy with the reply. In a disciplined force like the police force, it is expected that if an employee is transferred, he should join at the place of posting but he can make a representation against his transfer. However, in this case the stand of the Director General of Police himself is that since the employee had joined at the place of transfer, no action was called for on his representation. This will only encourage employees to dis-obey the orders and keep on making representations. 3 In our considered view, in a disciplined force, except if there are exceptional circumstances, no representation against the transfer should be even entertained unless the employee joins at the place he has been posted. We feel that the employer is the best judge of the place where an employee has to be posted. The employer however himself must keep the difficulties of the employee in mind and rejection or filing of the representation in such a cursory manner is not expected. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation enclosing therewith all necessary documents to the Director General of Police within two weeks from today. A copy of this order shall also be sent by the petitioner to the Director General of Police. The Director General of Police is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the facts stated in the petition. He shall consider the difficulties of the petitioner, if any, being posted at Chamba while deciding the same. The representation shall be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the representation. Needless to say that the Director General of Police is expected to act in a fair manner and 4 shall consider the case only according to the administrative exigencies and the rules governing the police force. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Director General of Police, he shall be at liberty to again approach this Court. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti copy. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge May 22, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge