Jitendra Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.

(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 01.09.2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 25.07.2026 has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police. He was transferred from District Dehradun to District Pithoragarh on administrative grounds by order dated 06.08.2026 and was relieved for joining at Pithoragarh on 14.08.2026. The aforesaid orders were under challenge in the writ petition.

The principal ground for challenging the transfer order was that the petitioner had been posted at Dehradun only one and a half years ago and, therefore, his transfer to Pithoragarh, which is a hilly area, was a violation of the minimum tenure policy under the Transfer Act. It was also his case that the respondents have transferred him on administrative ground on the basis of some complaint without holding proper inquiry. The petitioner also pleaded personal difficulty as his children were studying in a school in Dehradun and their studies would get affected because of transfer in midsession.

The learned Single Judge has held that the Transfer Act, 2017 is not applicable in the Police Department in view of Section 1(3) of the Act and, therefore, petitioner was not entitled to claim benefit of the said Act. It has also been held that the petitioner being a member of disciplined police force was transferred on administrative grounds after the due inquiry. Consequently, there is no illegality in the transfer order.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without considering various points raised in the writ petition. He submitted that the transfer order does not record any adverse finding against the petitioner, nor was it passed after providing any opportunity of hearing to him.

In support of his submission, he has cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Vishal Ashwin Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (S) Circle 25(3) & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322.

It appears from the facts, noted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that, on the basis of a complaint made against the petitioner in relation to the discharge of his duties, an inquiry was got conducted and, thereafter, the department having found some negligence on his part, considered it appropriate, in the interest of the administration, to transfer him to some other place.

The contention that the impugned order does not record any reasons is without any merits. Had the reasons been recorded, it would have made the order punitive in nature. It is always open to the department to transfer an employee on administrative ground to ensure better administration and efficiency in service.

It has been rightly noted by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is a member of a disciplined police force and it is not expected from him to get into litigation. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vishal Ashwin Patel (supora) does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the writ court had dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of the Assessing Officer under the Income-Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that the order passed by the High Court was a cryptic order and though number of grounds were raised by the writ petitioner for challenging the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition without dealing with the arguments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh.

We find no merits in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.