Ram Dayal vs RCSAT and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Petitioner, as alleged, serving as Sub-Inspector (MT) after having remained posted in District Bharatpur from 26/10/2006 to 02/03/2009 was transferred vide order Dt. 25/02/2009 to Dholpur District; however, Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bharatpur Range passed order dt.06/01/2011 transferring the Petitioner from Dholpur to Sawai Madhopur district in the interest of administration and since it was passed before expiry of two years period, he also sought permission from the authority to grant sanction. This order of his transfer Dt.06/01/2011 was assailed by Petitioner; however, his appeal-293/2011 was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide judgment dt.14/02/2011.

The authority while passing the order of transfer impugned has specifically mentioned that the Petitioner has been transferred in the interest of administration with immediate effect; in such circumstances, there appears to be no justification for this Court to take a contrary view to what has been urged by the authority unless it violates statutory rules or malice is imputed against the authority who has passed the order impugned.

Counsel submits that the order of transfer impugned has been passed against guidelines issued by competent authority, according to which, ordinarily employee was not required to be transferred before expiry of two years; and that apart, according to Counsel, Petitioner is going to retire in January, 2012 and one & half years prior to his retirement date, he has been transferred vide order impugned, which cannot be said to be in the interest of administration.

Submission made on behalf of the Petitioner has been considered by learned Tribunal in details while dismissing his appeal and the learned Tribunal did not find favour to accede to the request made and that apart, this Court does not find any substance in the submission made by Counsel for the reason that what has been referred to in the guidelines does not have statutory force. That apart, the authority is always competent to transfer even prior to the expiry of two years if required in the interest of administration, which has been taken note of while passing order of transfer impugned.

As regards submission made in regard to the period of service having remained of less than two years to attain age of superannuation, reliance has been placed upon decision of this Court in Rechlama TS v. State 2004 WLC (UC) 594, suffice it to say that it was a case having peculiar facts where observations have been made but it cannot be held to be statute where employee, if transferred before expiry of two years, it cannot be said to be a bad in law for all times to come; and each case has to be independently looked into.

It is not a case set up that the authority has violated statutory rules or the proven malice has been imputed against the authority which has passed the transfer impugned herein. In the absence whereof, this Court does not find justification to interfere in the action of Respondents exercising powers of transfer under Rule 20 of the Rules.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.