Tej Bahadur Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of present writ petition, the Petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 04.06.2011, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow relating to the relieving of the Petitioner, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, as well as the order dated 17.04.2011 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow with the prior approval of the Regional Police Establishment Board, Lucknow dated 13.04.2011, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, thereby transferring the Petitioner from Lucknow to Kheri and the order dated 20.04.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow thereby seeking relieving of the Petitioner.

The submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 3838 (S/S) of 2010 challenging the transfer order passed by the Regional Police Establishment Board. This Court while quashing the transfer order dated 29.05.2010 and 28.05.2010, so far as the same relate to the Petitioners, gave liberty to the opposite parties to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after approval from the Board constituted vide notification dated 12.03.2008.

The further submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that though fresh transfer order has been passed, but the same has not been passed by the Board constituted vide notification dated 12.03.2008.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to ensure the compliance of the order of this Court, while passing the impugned transfer order.

Learned Counsel also drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment and order dated 26.05.2011 passed in Special Appeal No. 405 of 2011; Pankaj Kumar Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. wherein the same controversy was considered. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

The short controversy for consideration is whether it was open to the Respondents to by-pass the binding direction of this Court, even in respect of subsequent events, if any. The new Board no doubt was constituted by notification dated 08.04.2010, but by the judgment dated 28.08.2010, the Court directed the Respondents to pass afresh order in terms of notification dated 12.03.2008. That Board also deals with transfer of constables.

In that light of the matter, the Respondents are bound to comply with the directions issued by this Court by order dated 28.08.2010 in Writ Petition No. 3838 (S/S) of 2010, as the transfer order has been passed without following the judgment of this Court.

In our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.04.2011 is set aside and the orders dated 17.04.2011 and 20.04.2011 impugned in the writ petition are quashed, so far as the same relate to the Appellants/Petitioners with liberty to the Respondents to pass afresh order in terms of direction of this Court dated 28.08.2010 issued in Writ Petition No. 3838 (S/S) of 2010.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Admittedly, the Petitioner was one of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3838 (S/S) of 2010, in which liberty was given to the opposite parties to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law after approval from the Board constituted vide notification dated 12.03.2008.

Apparently, the impugned transfer order has not been passed by the Board established in pursuance to the notification dated 12.03.2008. It is also admitted position that the impugned transfer order has been passed without following the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3838 (S/S) of 2010.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned transfer order dated 17.04.2011 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and the directions for relieving of the Petitioner dated 04.06.2011 and the order dated 20.04.2011 (Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ petition) are liable to be quashed.

The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 04.06.2011, 17.04.2011 and 20.04.2011 (Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed, so far as the same relate to the Petitioner, with liberty to the opposite parties to pass fresh order in terms of the directions of this Court dated 28.08.2010 issued in Writ Petition No. 3838 (S/S) of 2010.