(^•[^q^ ® BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION(S) N0. ykS6 / 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. './w^ / '.^XR.-'' ' ^/^^y £€f ~s^/ /-<?/X7 /^•^/ N/' -t'' <T 2. 3. 4. 5. Albert Kujur, aged about- 49 years, s/o. late Shri S. Kujur, Currently posted at Bastar Zone Naxal Operation, Base Camp Damkasa, District- Kanker (C.G.).. State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chairman, Police Establishment Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Inspector General of Police (Admn.), Police Meadquarters, Raipur, Chhaftisgarh Inspector General of Police (Naxal Operation), Chhattisgarh >;?• WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA f^W~ "w« •>—IF^t OUk-U—J-ajLffJL s . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLB SHRI MANINDR& MOHANSHMVASTAVA.J. Writ PeUtion (Sl No.2756/2010 PETITIONER Albert Kujur, aged about -49 years, S/o late Shri S. Kujur, Currently posted at Bastar Zone Naxal Qperation, Base Camp Damkasa, District-Kajaker Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhatdsgarh and others PeUtioa u/A 226 ofthe Constltutioa oflndia Appearance: Shri Saurabh Daugi, counsel for the petitioaer. Shri V.V.S. Murhly, Dy, Advocate General along with Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL-ORDBR (Passed on 8.7.2010) 1, This petition has been filed by the petitioner, an Inspector of Police, aggrieved by order dated 7.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) by which he has been transferred. This petition is also directed ^aiast relieving order dated 9.6.2010 passed iu pursuance of order dated 18.5.2010, by which represeittation of the petitibner has been rejected, which is also impugned ia this petition. 2.-Subimssion oflearued coiinsel for the petitioner, assailiag the validity of order, is that the petitioner was attached with Naxal Operation vide order dated 5.11.2009 and was directed to give joioing on 9.11.2009 ia 4th BattaUon, Cliliattisgarh Force, Mana, District-RaipTir, where he \ joiaed aad theieafter posted at Bastar Zone Naxal Operation, Base .iCN^. -2- Camp Damkasa, District - Kanlcer. Two days thereafter, impugned order dated 7.11.2009 came to be passed, by which the petitioner was traasferred to Bijapur. Petitioner submitted a representation agamst the order oftransfer. Aggneved by the order of traasfer, a writ petition was ffled before fhis Court, wbichwas registered as W.P. (S) No. 1305/10. Itwas finally disposed ofi'vide order dated 28th April, 2010 with direction to consider and decide the representation. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a detailed representation on 6.5.2010 aud respondent passed an order on fhe same on 18.5.2010 (Aiuiexure P-2), bywbich tbe representation was rejected, Pursuaat to rejection of representation, on 9.6.2010, petitioner has been directed to proceed on traasfer. 3. Submission of learued cotuisel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of traasfer dated 7.11.2009 was passed traasfemng the petitioner even though the petitiouer had not coiupleted 2 years of service at the place where he was posted, which is ia violation of provision contained in Section 14 (2) of the Chhattisgarh PoUce Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act of 2007"}. It is submitted that none of the contingencies inentioaed fiToin clause (a) to (h) of sub-section(2) of Section 14 ofthe Act of 2007 were present in the case aad therefore the impugned order of traasfer is illegal. He submits that wtule disposing off his earUer petition, this Court vide its order dated 28ttl April, 2010 ia W.P. (S) No. 1305/2010 observed that the order has been passed without assigniug reason. The other submission of leamed counsel for the petitioner is that fhe represeutation of the petitioner has been rejccted arbitrarily on certam considerations which are non-existmg. It K subimtted fhat fhe fact that ttie petitioner was fi-equently shifted, was not taken into consideration, It is also ui^ed that fhe transfer of 's B^NM -3- fhe petitioner is violative of guideliaes contamed ia Circular dated 9.2.2007 which was issued iu terms ofthe judgment of Supreme Court in fhe case of Prakash Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Oss. passed ia W.P. (C) No.310/19961. Lcamed counsel for the petitioner submitted fhat fhe requirement of law is that fhe administrative exigency, if auy, are required to be reduced in writing iu the order of transfer itself aud it could not be justified by recordiag fhose admiEttetrative exigencies in fhe miautes of proceedings of the PoUce Establishinent Board, Authority Coinpctent to ^sue order oftransfer. 4. Per contra, subnussions of learaed cotuisel for respondents is fhat ia compliaace of fhe order of this Court, representation of fhe petitioner was duly considered aad takiag iuto consideration the exigeacies of service, the same has been rejected. Leamed counsel for the respondents farther submits that ia fhe present case, provisions contained ia Scction 14 of fhe Act of 2007 have been coinpUed with in letter and spirit He further subnuts fhat the Board ia its meetmg dated 7.11,2009 considered the adininistrative ex^ency aad recorded the same iu writmg while proposing petitloner's transfer. It is also submitted that fhe law does not require fhat the admuustrati.ve ex^ency shouM be recorded ia fhe order oftransfer. 5, Section 14 of the Act of 2007 provides fhat a police officer posted as Of&cer-ia-charge of a Police Stetion or as a District Superintendent of Police, ia-chare of a PoUce Distnct shaB have a miuunum tenure of 2 years. It is further provided that notwithstendm.g the aforesaid provision, any such oflBcer inay be removed or transferred fmai his post before the expiiy of the TniniTmim tenure of 2 years in contingencles enumerated ia clause (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (^ & (fa) of sub-section (2) of 6) 8 SCC 1 r;,f "' ^ c ':^"K^ '- t :s~":> l K .- /•' ^^.^' -4- Section 14 of the Act of 2007. A reading of contingency enumerated ia clause (h) shows that aa officer inay be traasferred from his post even before expiiy of miTiiTniim tenure of 2 years either on his own request or on au admiaistrative exigency. The requireiuent of law is that fhe exigency is required to be recorded in writuig. 6. From the returu filed by tfae respondents, it is revealed fhat oa 7.11.2009, the Police EstabUshinent Board ia its laeeting, considered aad recorded in writing fhe adininistrative exigency, warraiitiiig trausfer offhe petitioner, whose name finds place at Sr, No.3 offhe Ust of OfBcers proposed to be transferred. I am unable to accept fhe contention of learaed counsel for the petitioner ~fhat the law requires that the adininistrative exigency is requircd to be recorded in writing and reproduced in thc transfer order. An order of transfer is not au order of quasi-judicial nature, nor a statutoiy order. It is nierely aa admiiustrative order. The requireaient of recording reasons or admuusteitive exigency in fhe transfer order could not be iasfcted upon in the abseuce of fhere beiug a specific provision in fhis regard. Clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act of 2007 requires that fhe adiniuistrative exigeucy shaU be recorded in. writing. In fhe opinion of fhis Coiirt recordiug of miautes of lueeting dated 7.11.2009 which contaiaed administrative exigencies reduced in writuig, fulBUs fhe requireiaents of law. In fhe optaion of this Court, therefore, fhere is no violation of Section 14 of the Act of 2007 while issuiag order oftransfer. 7. The other submission of leamed counsel for fhe petitioner that fhis Court had abeady decided this issue, also canaot be accepted. The aforesaid petition i.e. W.P. (S) No. 1305/10 was disposed off observmg fhat wifhout examiaing the inerits of ftie case, fhe Director General of n -'•5- ^s PoHce is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal/representation. The observations ofthe Courtwere onfy on the basis of the material which was placed on record at the initial stage of hearing. It is not disputed by the parties before fhis Court that Armexure R-l was not before fhe Court. It is therefore diflBcult to accept fhat fhis Court JSnally decided fhe issue raised in the petition at that stage. 8. Other grievaaces of the petitioner which were raised by him and considered by the authority are matters relatmg to admmistrative exigency aud this Cottrt would not sit as aa AppeUate Authority upon the satisfaction of the authorities in comiug to fhe conclusion wifh regard to exigencies of administration. The Circular dated 9.2.2007 of fhe Govemxnent was issued in view of fhe judgment of fhe Supreine Court in the case ofPrahash Singh (supra.) and later on, Chhattisgarh Police Act 2007 was enacted. Therefore, it is not necessaiy for this Court to separately consider fhe contents offhe Circular. 9. In view offhe discussion as above, I do not find any groimd to iaterfere wifh the order of transfer. Petitioner is liable to toe dismissed and is fherefore disiuissed. i Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava ;i0 ffi 4^i