IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17559 of 2011 1. Prabhat Bhushan Srivastava Sri Bageshwari Pd. Damodarpur, P.S. Mallahi, Distt. East Champaran At Motihari Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Regional Inspector General, Patna Zone Bihar, Patna 4. Deputy Inspector General Of Police Central Range, Patna 5. Deputy Inspector General Of Police C.I.D. Bihar, Patna 6. Senior Superintendent Of Police Patna 7. Superintendent Of Police C.I.D. Patna ---------------------------------- 3. 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his order of transfer dated 21.6.2011, transferring him to Traffic (Patna West) and 5.8.2011 transferring him to the C.I.D. at Muzaffarpur subsequently. It is submitted that after joining S.K. Puri Police Station, Patna, on 14.6.2010 the petitioner was ordered on 21.6.2011 to be deputed to the Department of Traffic (Patna West). Soon thereafter the order dated 5.8.2011 has been issued. Assailing the orders it is submitted that the latter indicts the petitioner, classifies him as an incompetent Police Officer and directs a departmental proceeding against him. The orders are based on a report dated 4.8.2011 of the Patna Regional I.G. which in no uncertain terms makes it manifest that the order of 2 transfer is in fact punitive in nature thus impermissible in law. It was lastly submitted that the transfer was pre-mature having been done in a period more less than of the normal three years with no justification in law. Counsel for the State supported the impugned orders urging that the utility of a Police Officer at one place or the other was a matter for the Department to decide. Transfer is a normal incidence of service. The administrative aspect of the same cannot be and must not be interfered with by the Court unless very strong grounds of mala fide are made out or violation of any statutory Rules and regulations governing the transfer are placed before the Court. Both the issues are completely wanting in the present writ petition. What may be appropriate to service discipline in a civilian service shall be entirely different from that applicable to a Police service. The defence of the petitioner that he should not be considered for transfer in a period less than three years may be a good defence for a person in civilian service but can be no defence for a person donning the uniform. The exigency of the two services is entirely different. 3 Where a Police Officer is to be posted, on which location can be best utilized and in what manner, is for the administrator to decide and not for the Court to determine or dictate. The challenge to the order dated 21.6.2011 is substantially infructuous as the petitioner is acknowledged to have subsequently joined at Muzaffarpur. The order dated 5.8.2011 states that on consideration of the performance of the officers named therein, including the petitioner it has been decided to transfer them and to initiate departmental proceedings against them. The exercise of the administrative power for transfer is one aspect and the alleged deficiency in discharge of duty is another aspect. The two can co-exist without any apparent clash. The respondents undoubtedly possess the power to transfer officers from one place to another in order to maintain not only discipline but efficiency in discharge of duties. To hold that they cannot pass such orders of transfer as they reflect an apparent punitive attitude may make transfer and posting impossible especially in a disciplined force. The Court holds that the transfer of the 4 petitioner in the recital contained in the order dated 5.8.2011 is only the reiteration of a administrative exercise/decision carried out by them to ensure transfer and postings in a manner so as to achieve the optimum from its officers at their best considered place of duty. Any reference to a departmental proceeding against the petitioner therein at this stage is an entirely superfluous matter which cannot affect his service unless and until they are proved in a departmental proceeding in accordance with law. The order impugned is not singular to the petitioner, but includes fifty five others also, similarly transferred. The order dated 5.8.2011 has to be understood in that perspective and nothing contained therein can be considered as an indictment or inefficiency of the petitioner unless and until the same is proved in accordance with law in any departmental proceeding. Considering a similar challenge in (2004)4 SCC 245 (Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath) it has been held at Paragraph-14 as follows:- “14. The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental 5 proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.” With the aforesaid observation the writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)