The Inspector General of Police (Budget, Appeal & Welfare), Bihar v. Patna
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20239 of 2012 ====================================================== Ranjula Devi W/O Sri Dhananjay Thakur Resident Of Mohalla Nawadih Road, Ward No. 16, Nauya Toli, P.O., P.S. & District Aurangabad (Bihar), Presently Posted As Copnstable (Women), Constable No. 664, Sub Divisional Court, Sherghati, District Gaya. .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Inspector General of Police (Budget, Appeal & Welfare), Bihar, Versus Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. 4. The Chairman, Transferring Committee, Police Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. Additional Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 21-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for quashing of the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the Inspector General of Police (Budget, Appeal and Welfare), Bihar, Patna, the respondent no.2 in regard to the petitioner’s transfer which is in utter violation of this Hon’ble Court’s order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11355 of 2012, although mechanical compliance has been done, but the order is not as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court as “to pass an order as per the Circle of the State Govt. vide letter no. MM01/R-28/2006-881) dated 03.06.2009.” But simply the representation has been
Decision
disposed of negating the very purpose of the order of this Hon’ble Court as well the circular of the State Govt. annexed herewith as referred in this Patna High Court CWJC No.20239 of 2012 (2) dt.21-01-2013 2 Hon’ble Court’s order dated 01.08.2012. Further for issuance of a direction commanding the respondents to modify the order dated 20.09.2012 in the light of the State Govt.’s circular as referred in the said order. In alternate, the petitioner who is on medical leave may not be disturbed from the present place of posting for sometime it is essentially needed, and the respondents must protect her, under the call of equity and justice.” Mrs. Asha Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has however now while making her submission confined the prayer of the petitioner for only implementation of the decision taken by the competent authority as communicated by the Respondent no. 2 in his letter no. 2854 dated 20.9.2012 (Annexure-1) relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- ^^iVuk] fnukad 20-9-12 fo"k;& lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 ua0 11355@2012] jatqyk nsoh cuke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU; ds laca/k es aA egk’k;] funs’kkuqlkj] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd x;k ftyk cy dh efgyk flikgh jatqyk nsoh dk iVuk i{ks= es a iz{ks=kof/k iw.kZ gksus ds dkj.k iqfyl eq[;ky; }kjk eqtIQjiqj iz{ks= esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;k x;k gSA eqtIQjiqj iz{ks=kns’k }kjk budk inLFkkiu cxgk ftyk esa fd;k x;k gSA buds ifr vkSjaxkckn iz[k.M dk;kZy; esa inLFkkfir gSA efgyk flikgh jatqyk nsoh }kjk LFkkukUrj.k ds fo:n~/k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 ua0 11355@2012 nk;j fd;k x;k FkkA fnukad 01-08-2012 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns’k esa vkosfndk ds vH;kosnu ij ljdkj ds ifji= ds vkyksd esa nks lIrkg ds vUnj fu.kZ; ysus gsrq funs’k Patna High Court CWJC No.20239 of 2012 (2) dt.21-01-2013 3 fn;k x;k gSA vkosfndk efgyk flikgh jatqyk nsoh ls izkIr vH;kosnu ij fopkjksijkUr ;kfpdkdRrkZ dk vkSjaxkckn ftyk esa LFkkukUrj.k gsrq vkosnu Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA ;kfpdkdRrkZ }kjk mBk;s x; fcUnq dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, eqtIQjiqj iz{ks= es a vkSjaxkckn ftyk ds lcls fudVre ftyk esa ;kfpdkdRRkZk dk inLFkkiu djus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr,o vuqjks/k gS fd mijksDr vkyksd esa efgyk flikgh jatqyk nsoh ds ekeys ij fopkj djrs gq, iqfyl eq[;ky; dks lwfpr fd;k tk;A rnuqlkj ldkj.k vkns’k ikfjr dj ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks lwfpr fd;k tk;sxkA ;kfpdkdRrkZ jatqyk nsoh dk vH;kosnu ikfjr U;k;kns’k dh izfr rFkk ;kfpdk dh izfr vuqyXudksa ds lkFk vxz srj fdz;kFkZ layXu gSA** Mrs. Verma has submitted that despite the aforementioned decision taken by the competent authority, its implementation by way of posting of the petitioner has not been mode as yet though the same was communicated some four months earlier to Regional I.G., Muzaffarpur in view of the individual hardship of the petitioner. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents wherein apart from other things, it has been stated that pursuant to the observation and direction made by this Court in its order dated 22.5.2012 in CWJC No. 11355 of 2012, the competent authority had decided to give posting to the petitioner nearer to Aurangabad district which was the best possible way to redress her personal hardship. The relevant part of the counter Patna High Court CWJC No.20239 of 2012 (2) dt.21-01-2013 4 affidavit reads as follows:- "That it is stated that pursuant to the said order, the representation was given by the petitioner in PHQ on 24.08.2012 which was considered by the Committee and after perusing the representation and her service record it was decided that in view of the Rules of the Bihar Police Manual, the petitioner cannot be posted back to the district of Patna Zone, but keeping in view her proximity to the place of posting of her husband, a direction was given to Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Zone vide PHQ memo no. 2854/P-3, dated 20.09.2012 directing that posting of the petitioner nearer to Aurangabad district is required to be considered in view of the exigencies shown by her in her representation pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court which is under consideration by the authorities. That the petitioner again filed instant application for quashing the above direction letter of PHQ dated 20.09.2012 which is premature as no order in terms of the direction issued has been passed and therefore the same is required to be dismissed as the cause for filling the present application has not occasioned." It thus becomes clear that the filing of the present writ application has made the authorities not go give her posting as per decision taken by Respondent no. 2. Since the respondents have filed this counter affidavit in the backdrop that the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.20239 of 2012 (2) dt.21-01-2013 5 herself has again assailed the said order dated 20.9.2012 quoted above, nothing could have been stated as with regard to the action taken in the light of the aforesaid direction issued by the Police Headquarters on 20.9.2012 (Annexure-1). In the considered opinion of this court now, when the petitioner has herself made a change in her stand and wants the order of the competent authority dated 20.9.2012 to be complied, this Court would direct the Zonal Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur to pass an order for transfer of the petitioner to an appropriate place as communicated to him in the order contained in the letter dated 20.9.2012 (Annexure-1) at an early date preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is however made clear that such exercise will be undertaken by the Zonal I.G., Muzaffarpur only if the same has not been done as yet. In other words if the petitioner has already been given a posting by Zonal I.G., Muzaffarpur in pursuance of the order dated 20.9.2012, that will remain undisturbed. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-