CoramThe Honourable Mr v. The Commissioner of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 16-3-2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.49001 of 2006 and M.P.No. 2 of 2006P. Samraj...PetitionerVs.1.The Commissioner of Police,Office of the Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Egmore,Chennai - 600 008.2.R.Riazuddin...RespondentsPrayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the records relating to the order passed by the firstrespondent in Rc.No.57816/Estt.1(2)/2006-2/CPO No.2809/2006, dated9.11.2006 and quash the same inasmuch as the transfer of thepetitioner is concerned, consequently directing the first respondentto transfer the second respondent to some other station.For Petitioner:Mr.E.Martin JayakumarFor Respondent No.1:Mr.P.Subramanian,Government AdvocateO R D E RBy consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken upfor final disposal.2.Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the first respondentdated 9.11.2006 transferring the petitioner from T-9 Pattabiram PoliceStation to R-6 Kumaran Nagar (Crime) Police Station, within theChennai City Police limits.3.The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petitionare that the petitioner was originally appointed as Sub-Inspector ofPolice in the year 1989 and subsequently promoted as Inspector of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Police and he was having total service of about 19 years. By theimpugned order, petitioner was transferred from T-9 Pattabiram PoliceStation to R-6 Kumaran Nagar (Crime) Police Station, Chennai, withinthree months. The said order is challenged on the ground that only toaccommodate the second respondent, who was promoted as Inspector ofPolice from the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police, the order oftransfer is made. It is also stated in the affidavit that thepetitioner is transferred 5th time in the year 2006 to various policestations and the transfer is made during non-transferable period.4.The first respondent filed counter affidavit wherein theallegations made by the petitioner that only to accommodate the secondrespondent petitioner was transferred, is denied and by order dated9.11.2006, 52 Inspectors of Police were re-shuffled within ChennaiCity Police and the petitioner is one among them. The transfers wereeffected in order to cope up with the annexation of erstwhileChengalpet East District with the Chennai Metropolitan Police; to meetout the safety and security of the Public; and to revamp the growingnecessity of the Chennai City Police. It is also stated in the counteraffidavit that from 1994 as Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter asInspector of Plice, petitioner is serving in and around the ChennaiCity for the past 13 years. Prior to posting at T-9 Pattabiram PoliceStation, he was serving in S-8 Adambakkam Police Station from 1.9.2004to 8.8.2006 and prior to that he was serving in T-3 Korattur PoliceStation, H-5 New Washerman (Crime) Police Station, and when he wasposted at Adyar (Crime) Police Station on 8.8.2006, petitionerrequested to post him at T-9 Pattabiram Police Station and thereforethe said transfer order was cancelled on 9.8.2006 at his request. Itis also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner whileworking in T-9 Pattabiram Police Station, he failed to manage thestation satisfactorily and failed to handle investigation of criminalcases satisfactorily and the details are stated in paragraph 6 of thecounter affidavit which reads as follows,"...... It is submitted, that though T9Pattabiram Police Station is relatively lightstation, he has failed to manage the stationsatisfactorily. There were complaints ofbootlegging and gambling in the station limits.He did not handle the investigation of criminalcases satisfactorily. For example a case inCr.No.1348/2006 u/s.174 Cr.PC was registered on26.9.2006, Five members of one family viz.1.Joshua Jayaraman, his wife 2) Gowri, 3)Sivaprakasam, 4) Margret Manimegalai,W/o.Sivaprakasam, and their son, 5) Arputharaj,died of poison for domestic reason. Inspector whotook up this case has not written CD's statementsand the Inquest reports etc. The same were not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sent to superior officer as well as to executivemagistrate. Similarly he has registered a case inT9 P.S. Cr.No.1535/06 U/s.20(b) NDPS Act against1) Paramasivam, A/49, S/o.Cheriyan, No.4/25 B,Kamarajar Street, Nemilichery, Pattabiram, on2.11.06. No CD's written, no progress made inthis case also after remand. On 20.9.06 at 08.00hrs he has registered a cases in T-9 P.S.C.No.1320/06 u/s.279, 304(A) IPC in which oneVasantha Kumar, A/19, S/o.Rajendran, No.7,Arumugam Street, Jothi Ramalingam Nagar, Chennai-33, died on road accident. In this case alsoInspector has not even prepared inquest reportstatements and written CD's. His investigation inall the above and many other cases are por,improper and below satisfaction for which chargesare being framed against him. The T9 PattabiramPolice Station is a sub-urban police station,which requires some young direct recruit officers,in order to infill confidence in the minds of thestation staff as well as the public, to cope upwith the increasing demand in containing the crimerate int he sub-urban. It is therefore submittedthat the posting of R.Riazuddin to T9 PattabiramPS, is only on the above grounds, and not on anymala fide as alleged by the writ petitioner."It is also stated in the counter affidavit that orders of transfer arebeing made according to the administrative exigency and there is nomala fide in transferring the petitioner from Pattabiram PoliceStation to Kumaran Nagar Police Station, which is also a nearby placeonly few kilometers away from Pattabiram Police Station and thepetitioner has also joined at R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station on15.1.2007.5.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that thepetitioner is transferred only to accommodate the second respondentand he was transferred within three months from the date of hisearlier transfer and it is made during non-transferable period andtherefore the transfer order is unsustainable.6.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the firstrespondent submitted that the police force is a disciplined force andin view of the administrative exigency in annexing the then ChengalpetEast District with the Chennai Metropolitan Police limits, shufflingof Police personnel were made and petitioner is one among the 52Police Officers transferred and there is no mala fide as alleged. Thepetitioner's performance is also not satisfactory with regard to hisstation management, investigation of criminal cases, particularly in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preparing the inquest report, obtaining statements and investigations.The T-9 Pattabiram Police Station being a sub-urban police station,which requires young officers to instil confidence in the minds of thestation staff as well as the public in containing crime rate andtherefore the petitioner's transfer is justifiable.7.I have considered the rival submissions of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate.8.The point in issue is whether the petitioner has any rightto pray that he should be retained in the T9 Pattabiram PoliceStation.9.It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in transferablepost. Transfer is an incident of service, is not in dispute. Postinga person, particularly a police Officer in a particular station,depends upon various factors, depending on administrative exigencies.The performance of the petitioner in maintaining station,investigation of cases, etc., are not upto the mark. Shabbyinvestigation of criminal cases is a serious lapse on the part of theinvestigating officer and it will have serious repercussions andsupervising the same is definitely a part of police administration.Hence the first respondent is right in contending that the petitioneris transferred based on his performance and on administrative exigencythe second respondent is posted as Inspector of Police in T-9pattabiram Police Station. 10.The contention of the petitioner that he is transferred innon-transferable period is also not acceptable since the norms of thetransfer are only guidelines, which has no binding effect.11.The scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer iswell settled by the Honourable Supreme Court.(a)The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR1993 SC 2444 (Union of India v. S.L.Abbas) in paragraph 7 held asfollows,"7.Who should be transferred where, is amatter for the appropriate authority to decide.Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutoryprovisions, the Court cannot interfere with it.While ordering the transfer, there is not doubt,the authority must keep in mind the guidelinesissued by the Government on the subject.Similarly if a person makes any representationwith respect to his transfer, the appropriateauthority must consider the same having regard tothe exigencies of administration. The guidelines https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ say that as far as possible, husband and wife mustbe posted at the same place. The said guidelinehowever does not confer upon the Governmentemployee a legally enforceable right."(b)In AIR 1993 SC 2486 (State of Punjab v. Joginder SinghDhatt), in paragraph 3, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,"3.We have heard learned Counsel for theparties. This Court has time and again expressedits disapproval of the courts below interferingwith the order of transfer of public servant fromone place to another. It is entirely for theemployer to decide when, where and at what pointof time a public servant is transferred from hispresent posting. Ordinarily the courts have nojurisdiction to interfere with the order oftransfer. The High Court grossly erred inquashing the order of transfer of the respondentfrom Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court wasnot justified in extending its jurisdiction underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India in amatter where, on the face of it, no injustice wascaused."(c)in (2001) 8 SCC 574 (National Hydroelectric Power Corpn.Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan), wherein at para 5, the Honourable Supreme Courtheld as follows,"5. ................. It is by now wellsettled and often reiterated by this Court that nogovernment servant or employee of a publicundertaking has any legal right to be posted foreverat any one particular place since transfer of aparticular employee appointed to the class orcategory of transferable posts from one place toother is not only an incident, but a condition ofservice, necessary too in public interest andefficiency in the public administration. Unless anorder of transfer is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be in violationof statutory provisions prohibiting any suchtransfer, the courts or the tribunals cannotinterfere with such orders as a matter of routine,as though they are the appellate authoritiessubstituting their own decision for that of themanagement, as against such orders passed in theinterest of administrative exigencies of the serviceconcerned. ................ " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.The power of the Court while dealing with the transfer orderis explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the followingdecisions.(i)In (2004) 7 SCC 405 (State of U.P. And another v. Siya Ramand another), at paragraph 5 the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,"5.The High Court while exercisingjurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India had gone into the question asto whether the transfer was in the interest ofpublic service. That would essentially requirefactual adjudication and invariably depend uponpeculiar facts and circumstances of the caseconcerned. No government servant or employee of apublic undertaking has any legal right to be postedforever at any one particular place or place of hischoice since transfer of a particular employeeappointed to the class or category of transferableposts from one place to other is not only anincident, but a condition of service, necessary tooin public interest and efficiency in the publicadministration. Unless an order of transfer isshown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise orstated to be in violation of statutory provisionsprohibiting any such transfer, the courts or thetribunals normally cannot interfere with suchorders as a matter of routine, as though they wereappellate authorities substituting their owndecision for that of the employer/management, asagainst such orders passed in the interest ofadministrative exigencies of the service concerned.This position was highlighted by this Court inNational Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd v. ShriBhagwan ((2001) 8 SCC 574)."(ii)In (2004) 12 SCC 299 (Kendriya vidyalaya Sangathan v.Damodar Prasad Pandey and others), in paragraph 4 the HonourableSupreme Court observed as follows,"4.Transfer which is an incidence of serviceis not to be interfered with by courts unless it isshown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by malafide or infraction of any prescribed norms ofprinciples governing the transfer (see Abani KantaRay v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169).Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fideor is made in violation of operative guidelines, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ court cannot interfere with it (see Union of Indiav. S.L.Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357). Who should betransferred and posted where is a matter for theadministrative authority to decide. Unless theorder of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or ismade in violation of any operative guidelines orrules the courts should not ordinarily interferewith it. In Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath,(2004) 4 SCC 245, it was observed as follows (SCCp.250, para 9)"No government servant or employee of apublic undertaking has any legal right to beposted forever at any one particular place orplace of his choice since transfer of aparticular employee appointed to the class orcategory of transferable posts from one placeto another is not only an incident, but acondition of service, necessary too in publicinterest and efficiency in the publicadministration. Unless an order of transfer isshown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise orstated to be in violation of statutoryprovisions prohibiting any such transfer, thecourts or the tribunals normally cannotinterfere with such orders as a matter ofroutine, as though they were the appellateauthorities substituting their own decision forthat of the employer/management, as againstsuch orders passed in the interest ofadministrative exigencies of the serviceconcerned. This position was highlighted bythis Court in National Hydroelectric PowerCorpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574."(iii) I have also taken similar view in a transfer matter in thedecision reported in (2006) 2 MLJ 474 (Chinnasamy v. DistrictCollector, Salem) and also in W.P.No.4511 of 2006 dated 25.8.2006(Dr.T.Mytle Grace v. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatoreand Others).13.Following the above cited decisions and having regard to thefacts in this case, I am of the view that the petitioner has no legalright to contend that he shall not be transferred and he should bepermitted to work in the same T-9 Pattabiram Police Station. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.There is no merit in the writ petition and the same isdismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is alsodismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvrToThe Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police,Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 16996SR (CO)km/22.3.W.P.No.49001 of 2006