Suresh Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the order of transfer dated 7th November, 2012, whereby the petitioners posted in the Traffic Police Lines at Gautam Budh Nagar have now been transferred to the Armed Police. The ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the transfer order was not approved by the Police Establishment Board. On this issue, the respondents were directed to file a counter-affidavit, and thereafter, the Court directed the learned standing counsel to produce the record of the Police Establishment Board of the last three months. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Chief Standing Counsel and has also perused the record that has been produced. From a perusal of the aforesaid record, the Court finds that on 12th July, 2012, the Addl. Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut, while referring to the policy of the Traffic Directorate, directed all the Authorities in its zone to place a list of those constables and head constables who had crossed the age of 45 and 50 years respectively, so that a decision could be taken as per the policy to transfer them to the Armed Police. In this regard, reminders dated 30th July, 2012, 14th August, 2012 and 19th September, 2012 was made by the Addl. Director General of Police to the Senior Superintendent of Police and to the Superintendent of Police to send the list as early as possible. Pursuant to the said directions, a list was prepared, which was subsequently approved by a committee in its meeting held on 9th October, 2012. The said recommendation of the Committee was placed before the Police Establishment Board, which list was approved on 7th November, 2012, and thereafter, the impugned transfer order was issued.

In the light of the aforesaid facts that has been culled out from the record, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order only refers to the order of the Addl. Director General of Police dated 12th July, 2012 and does not refer to the approval, if any, granted by the Police Establishment Board on 7th November, 2012. The Court finds from the impugned order that it does refer to the order of the Addl. Director General of Police dated 12th July, 2012, but then by referring to the said order, it does not mean that there has been no approval of the Police Establishment Board. The impugned order is only a consequential order of transfer issued by the Competent Authority transferring the petitioners from Traffic Police to Armed Police. The Court is satisfied that the transfer of the petitioners was approved by the Police Establishment Board, and consequently, there is no irregularity in the transfer order.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Before parting, the Court is constrained to observe that while perusing the original records, the Court finds that all orders of the Police Establishment Board are kept in separate files. There is no serial number given to the Minutes of the meetings held by the Police Establishment Board nor any agenda has been prepared. No master file has been prepared nor there is anything to indicate that the orders of the Police Establishment Board are passed date wise and the same are recorded in seriatim. It is essential that there is transparency in the proceedings of the Board and further that approvals are not taken from the Police Establishment Board on a back date. Further, the agenda would show that there has been a meeting held by the members of the Police Establishment Board and that there has been an application of mind and that a conscious decision was taken in the matter on the issue indicated in the agenda. The minutes should not show or indicate that the decision was taken by way of circulation.

Consequently, the Court directs that, in future, the aforesaid anomalies, which the Court has seen while perusing the record, should be rectified and the Police Establishment Board should follow a procedure in the light of the observation made aforesaid.

Let a certified copy of this order be sent by the Chief Standing Counsel to the Director General of Police concerned within two weeks from today, so that appropriate orders in this regard is issued by the Director General of Police. The record which the Court had retained is being handed over to the learned standing counsel today in the Court, so that it may be returned to the appropriate authority. The certified copy of the order shall be issued by the registry to the Chief Standing Counsel within ten days from today free of cost.