CWP No.3251 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.3251 of 2007 Date of decision: 25.8.2008 Parminder Singh ..Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. K.V. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Cadre Sangrur to District Cadre Patiala as both are in different Police Ranges. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order (Annexure P-1), vide which he was suspended. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order of suspension (Annexure P-1) has been revoked and hence this prayer of the petitioner has been rendered infructuous. As far as the prayer of the petitioner with regard to his transfer from District Cadre Sangrur to District Cadre Patiala is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rohtas and others Vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (4) R.S.J. 142, wherein it has been CWP No.3251 of 2007 2 held that no inter district transfer could be effected. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the order passed in Rohtas's case (supra) has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He further states that a head constable can be transferred to any place within the State under Rule 14.15 and Rule 12.26 of the Punjab Police Rules. Rule 12.26 is reproduced as under:- “As per Rule 12.26. :- Exchange of appointment between lower subordinates in district of the same range, or between such police officers in the railway and district police, may be effected subject to the approval of the Superintendents concerned (or of the Assistant Inspector-General in cases affecting the railway police). A lower subordinate may be transferred to fill a vacancy in a district other than that in which he is serving only with the sanction of Deputy Inspector-General of the range. In cases of transfer from and to district in different ranges, or from and to the railway police, the sanction of both Deputy Inspector-General concerned or of the Deputy Inspector-General concerned and the Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police, is required.” Learned counsel for the State submits that as the order has been passed by Inspector General of Police, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is in order and there is no infirmity in the order transferring the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on Rule 1.5 of PPR and contends that the petitioner can be deputed in any unit of Police Department for official duty. Rule 1.5 of PPR is reproduced as under:- CWP No.3251 of 2007 3 “1.5 limits of Jurisdiction and Liability to transfer All police officers appointed and enrolled in either of the two general police district constitute one police force and are liable to, and legally empowered for, police duty anywhere within the province. No Sub-division of the force territorially or by classes, as such as mounted and foot police, affects this Principle” After hearing the counsel for parties, we find that the transfer is on administrative grounds. Moreover, as per Rule 1.5 of PPR the petitioner could be deputed in any unit of Police Department for official duty. No merit. Dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 25, 2008 'rajpal'