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suspension (Annexure P-1) has been revoked and hence this prayer of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’