s Hl Id \-~ jiS P-en i.-s's? a s THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C. W^P,N0. I < t-/ / / 2005 Petitioner Respondents Ram.akant Saliu, S/o Stiri Balirain-Sahu, aged about 33 years, Occupation: Sub- Inspector, resident of KEuiker, Dist. Kanker(C.G.) •^s. ^' <c<f,.i ^; 1) State of Chliattisgarh, through Secretaiy, Deparbneatof Home (Pollce), D.K.S.Bhawau, Matitralaya, Raipur. • y 2) Superiiitendent of Police, KaQker, District Kanker (C.G.) / WRIT PE?ITnONJ(JNDE»A^nCT-ES226^2270FTHE 1 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Bs l^ljtl:;;" siiliii li:•III BJIII BKl!l.il! tS :;1: HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTIS&ARH Writ Petition No.1189 of 2005 Ramakouit Sahu - Versus - State of Chhattisgarh and another t ..fc-1 PQST TOR OR&ER ON /r/^ JUNE, 2005 Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ';;|ii|H;i;;r; :J'^IKS:II^I ';"niijiiij? •:1;'ilil::!1 -'t-s lilSI ; 3s: l!^^g IJ!!iM.' ilSiil -iiiiai" ^:t;:?;;^ .'y:. KBSiJ^i' 11189i!111!l:'ii' SSMStifi ill III ill mi !l;l !:!ii! fii H^- i !1  ••* ft'DiiB HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATriS6ARH Writ Petition No. 1189 of 2005 Ramakcmt Sahu - Versus- State of Chhattis9arh and another Present; - <. <- &r. N.K. Shukia, Senior Advoccite with Mr. Shailenclra Shukld, Advocate: Mr. U.N.S. &eo, fioyt. Advocate with AAr. 5udhir Agrawal, PcinelL.awyer; For the petitioner. For the State/responclents. O R D E R (Passed ony^'June. 2005) L.C. BHADOO. J. 1. The petitioner, who is working os Syb-Inspector of Police in District: Kanker, has preferred this wnt petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the CQnstitution of India; being dggrieved by thedctionof respondent No.2 Superintendent of Police, Kanker, wher&by respondent No.2 is not relievin9 the petitioner in compliance of order dated 5-8-2004 (Annexure P-1) tronsferring the petitioner frotn bistrict: l&nker to 6.R.P., Raipur. 2. Brief factsi leading to filingof this writ petition are that the petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector at Konker since July, 2002, in compliaiice • of the transfer order dated 16-7-2002 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has been transferred from t5istrict: Kanker to 6.R.P., Raipur viicl&oi-der dated 5-8-2004 (Annexure P-1). However, in spi-te iofj sever'dl representations nKide by •the petitioner, respondent N0.^ i is fno-l' reiievin9 him in complitinee of the!orcler Annexure P-1. } 'Ti^i^fofe.^jsy- :l!i'lli{:i^;'i:i.fj':'^ this writ petition the petitioner ftas sought a reliefithtttijrey[}ondien'f iS-fEI m^ IIIE^S 3111111 lipll m JliBll. •t!!fe ^.ii; III,- Page2of5 <' ^? ' -< No.2 be directed to relieve the petitioner so as to enabie him to joiwat his new placeof posting i.e. 6.R.P., Raipur. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State/respondents in which it has been mentioned that the entire Bastar Oivision consists of three districts namely, North Btistar Kanker, Bcxstar & South Bastar Dantewadoi, and these arecxs are severely Naxalite affected arecis and the Naxalite problem is,.all pervading and alarming, therefore, the presence of Police perSgnnei who are trained in Anti-Naxalite Operationsare very much necessary in order to control the Naxalite menace. The petitioner is the only person who is Anti-Naxalite Sreyhound Trained, therefore, his presence is necessary in Kanker District. It has been specifically mentioned in Annexure P-1 that the tnmsferred persons should be relieved only when a suitable reliever comes in and takes the charge from the transferred person. So far no person has Joined who is Anti-Naxalite ©reyhoundTrained, therefore, the usual procedure regarding transfer of civil 6overnment employees wouid not be applicable in the case of Police personnel, specially in view of the fact that the area of Bastar bivision is highly Noixalite affected. Therefore, the writ petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner argued that even though two persons namely, S.S. Mpharathi di Rahul Tiwar-i have already joined,the petitioner has not been relieved. He further argued that as per the ©overnmentpolicydated 13-2-2001 (Annexure P-5) tiie Sub-Inspectors whoha.vs worked for two years in the Naxalite affected area to the satisfaction of the au-thority, are entitled for trdnsfer in any one range out of the three police ranges. Thepefore, lookin9 to this poiicy also the petitioner ought to have been reliewd. Page3of5 iii"'::'.:. ; ^ii \^ 6. In the reply it has been mentioned that it is true that Rahul Tiwari &. 5.5. Maharathi have joined in Konker District, but they are not mezzo trained. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the relevant record. Perusal of the transfer order Annexure P-1 shows that in all 18 Sub-Inspectors were transferred by this order, and belpw the nameof trouisfer'red employees (Sub-Inspectors) a note has been appended that the employ^s who hwe been transferred from scheduled ared/Naxalite affected area should be relieved only after theirrelieverjoinstheduty. 1 8. It is true that the Police-personnel are required to maintain law and order, and particular'ly when they are posted in the Naxalite af-fected areas in order to control and curb Naxolite actiyities, trained Poiice personnel are always required. This fact cannot be denied. But at the same time,the Soyernment has itself issued the guidelines dqted 13-2- 2001 (Annexure P-5) in which it has been mentioned that if any Sub- Inspector or Inspector has served two years in the Ndxalite affected area to the satisfaction of the duthority, then he is entitled for tronsfer in ony range out of the three Police ranges. This clause of the policy shows that in order to keep the morale of the Police personnel high and to keep -riiem changing so as to enable thern to work efficiently in the Naxalite affected area, two years' perjod has been consictered sufficient by the fiovernment for their posting dt a time in Noxaiite area. Considering this aspect, this condition has been incorporated in •rtiepolicy guidelines. | 9. It is common knowledge that if an employee is forced to continue ui the Ncixaiite affected area for indefinite period then that is bouihy;to affe.et the morale and efficiencyof the cohcerned employee, cnctrHiat is why the ©overnmentconsidering all the pros oind cons incorpoMtieel d: clciuse in the transfer'policy that if any Sub-Inspector or Insp^cNir tll •I'ilil ]:iu Page 4 of 5 "^ -'>. has served satisfactorily for about two years in the Noxalite affected area, then he is entitled for his transfer in any one of the ranges out of the three ranges. 10. Therefore, the authorities are required to take into consideration this aspect also, otherwise, if ony Police pei^onnel is continuously kept in the Naxalite affected area then he may lose his interest in his duty and he may also adopt thef.indifferent attitude. ^*\ 11. It appears that taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, on completion of two years' service, the petitioner was tromsferred out of the Naxalite area vide Annexure P-1. As far as the question of joining of the reliever is concerned, this condition cannot be made applicable for indefinite period. It can be made applicable for a reasonable period so that in co.se, the reliever has not joined his duties then the Superintendent of Police can ask the headquarters to direct the reliever to join immediatety or ask the headquarters to post any other person to relieve the transferred employee. When the State ©overnmentwhile transferrin9 the petitioner has posted some one then it is the duty of the 6overnment to enforce that order and if the substitute has not joined then they shoutd find out some other substitute so that the transferred employee is relieved. In this connection, if we look into the order Annexure P-1, it was issued on 5-8- 2004 and by now more than ten months per-iod has been cpmpleted after issuance of this order, but, even then the petitioner is not being relieved. AAoreover, the petitioner has been transferredatadistflmce - of round about 150 kms. In case his services dre required, then he can be sumrnoned from Raipur at any time, but in the presence of Annexure P-1, the transfer order/and also looking to the transfer policy, the petitioner cannot be detained for indefinite period. When the Soyemment has issued his transfer order -t+ien it is ifor the Sovernment/concerned authorities to make proper arrangemait within Page 5 of 5 iNil! n:|!!i:il 1'11-'^:,-;:!; if Soma r'r-'-^ a reasonable time, so as to enable the petitioner to join his duties gt tremsferred place. Therefore, the action of responcfent No.2 in any circumstoOTces cannot be held to be justified, and the same is arbitrary. 12.In the result, the petition isallowed and respondent No.2 is directed to relieve the petitioner from h is present plpce of posting so as to enable him to join at the new placeof posting. However, one month more time from today is allowed to the respondents to relieve the petitioner and in the mean time, they can make arran9ement for reliever of the petitioner. f . sd/- 1 L-C. Bhadoo Judge