Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.@mdashHeard Sri Yogesh Pacholiya, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner was a constables in Uttarakhand Civil Police. Vide order dated 19.7.2010 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) Petitioner Constable Kailash Chandra Singh Parihar (Writ Petition (S/S) No. 740/2010) was transferred from "Thana Kichcha, Gadarpur" to Chamoli, sub-inspector Gopal Singh ( Petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 616/2010) was transferred from "Thana Kichcha" to Tehri Garhwal, constable Sanjay Sharma (Petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 697/2010) was transferred from "Thana Kichcha, Nanakmatta" to Rudraprayag and constable Jamshed Ali (Petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 753 of 2010) was transferred from "Thana Kichcha, Kunda" to Pauri Garhwal. The Petitioner has challenged his transfer order on the ground that this order has not been passed for administrative reason and it is by way of punishment. Since transfer is not one of the punishment prescribed under rules, the Petitioner cannot be transferred as punishment. This contention of the Petitioner is more or less admitted by the State in its counter affidavit. The averment made by the State counsel in para 3 (B) of the counter affidavit reads as follows:
That a news item was published in the daily newspaper ''Punjab Kesri on 24th April, 2010. The said news paper publication was made as it was found that the Petitioner was involved in taking money from the vehicles which were passing through the police check post, Foolbhatta. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner is working in district-Udham Singh Nagar for the last 3 years and the Constable, Kailash Chandra Parihar is working in district-Udham Singh Nagar from 14.12.2007. Thus, apart from Sri Kailash Chandra Parihar the other persons who were transferred by the impugned order have worked for more than 7 years in Udham Singh Nagar. It is submitted that the transfer policy stipulates a condition that in case person is not taking the duties seriously then the transfer order can be made on administrative ground. In the present case, the enquiry was conducted by the police personal Sri Manoj, Deputy S.P. Udham Singh Nagar and Sri Swatentra Prasad, Deputy S.P. Udham Singh Nagar by which it was found that in the checking which was held on 20th /21st April, 2010 from 10:30 to 6 A.M., it was found that the vehicles which were passing through the police chowki, Foolbhatta were giving the money to person standing in civil dress. The said vehicles'' drivers had informed that the money was demanded from them. The said exercise which was held on 20th / 21st April, 2010 was done to check as to whether the police personals posted there, were taking money from the vehicles owners or not. True copy of the report submitted by the said persons to the S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar along with the statement of the vehicles owners and the permit of the said vehicles owners is being filed, as ANNEXURE No. C.A. 1 to this counter affidavit. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioners were transferred on administrative ground due to the reasons stated above.
3. As such, it is clear that, inter alia, the reason for transferring the Petitioner was that it was found that the Petitioner was involved in taking money from passengers and transporters, passing through a particular check-post called "Foolbhatta". In other words, he was extorting money from transporters and was engaged in corruption. This is a very serious charge for a police personnel in Police Department, who is supposed to be a disciplined force. All the same, the question remains as to whether on such serious charges, transfer was the solution. It is a considered view of this Court that in such matters transfers cannot be resorted to, as transfer cannot be made by way of punishment. Moreover, a punishment where the incumbent has not been heard, will be in violation of natural justice and fair play. On the other hand, a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner was liable to be initiated and if the charges are proved the punishment was liable to be imposed upon him. Transfer was not a remedy. Merely because the Petitioner was engaged in corrupt practices, he should not be transferred to another place. Simply because transfer cannot be made as a means of punishment. Therefore, the transfer order dated 19.7.2010 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is absolutely in violation of law and is hereby set aside. However, in view of the admitted position by the Respondents that the Petitioner was indulged in corrupt practices and was extorting money from passengers and transporters, the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, is hereby directed to hold a preliminary enquiry in the matter and if the charges against the Petitioner is established, he must initiate a proper disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner and the disciplinary proceeding shall be taken to its logical end.
4. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
5. The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, Dehradun for onward compliance.
