Pno No 960700590 Inspector Pappu Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt and Another

Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8868 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pno No 960700590 Inspector Pappu Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶2Petition has been filed challenging order dated 13.10.2023 whereby petitioner has been transferred from Lucknow to Agra purportedly on administrative grounds.

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed as a measure of punishment on account of an incident said to have taken place on 30.08.2023 whereunder a female Police Constable was attacked by certain unknown persons. It is submitted that petitioner had absolutely nothing whatsoever with aforesaid incident nor is such the case of opposite parties. It is submitted that in fact a preliminary enquiry was held with regard to aforesaid incident and petitioner was found negligent of his duties without conducting a proper enquiry in the matter. He has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 to submit that transfer cannot be resorted to as a mode of punishment.

¶4Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 28.11.2023 which are taken on record and as per which submission of learned counsel for petitioner stands corroborated that petitioner has been transferred in view of aforesaid incident. Learned State Counsel further submits that petitioner has already joined at the transferred place.

¶5Learned counsel for petitioner at this stage submits that since impugned order has been passed as a mode of punishment, it may not be reflected in the service book so as to prejudice the case of petitioner and he may be granted liberty to file a representation against the impugned order.

¶6Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner has been transferred on account of aforesaid incident said to have taken place on 30.08.2023. As such the transfer order appears to have been passed as a mode of punishment and is not in consonance with the judgment rendered in Somesh Tiwari (supra). However since petitioner has already joined at the transferred place, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a representation before opposite party no.2 i.e. Additional Director General of Police, Railway U.P., Lucknow against the transfer order. In case any such representation is filed, the said authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority along with fresh representation.

¶7It is made clear that transfer order shall not be indicated as has been passed as a mode of negligence on part of petitioner, in service book.

¶8With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 kvg/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench