LUCKNOW vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P.

2. Heard Sri P.K.Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

3. The captioned writ petition has been filed assailing therein, the order dated

27.08.2025 passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Establishment, U.P. Lucknow whereby, the petitioner, who is a Constable of civil police, had been transferred from Lucknow to Shamli.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer, on its face, is punitive as petitioner had been transferred on the charge that a gang carrying out activities relating to narcotics drugs was operational in the area of Police Chowki Gaughat. It has further been contended that the incident, on the basis of which, petitioner and other police personnel have been transferred, is of 13.07.2025 and on the said date, petitioner was not on duty in Police Chowki Gaughat, Police Station Thakurganj, Police Commissionarate Lucknow, therefore there was no occasion for transferring the petitioner from Lucknow to Shamli.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, on the basis of instructions, has submitted that the petitioner was on duty in the night of 13/14.07.2025 in Police Chowki Gaughat, Police Station Thakurganj, Police Commissionarate Lucknow and a gang operating the activities of narcotics drugs was found and the authorities were of the view that such a gang could not have operated without some sort of involvement of the police personnel, who were on duty in the Police Chowki Gaughat, Police Station Thakurganj, Police Commissionarate Lucknow.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has brought to the notice of this 2 WRIA No. 11027 of 2025 Court that along with the petitioner seven other police personnel have also been transferred for the same reason and one of them, Mr. Harendra Singh, PNO No.182464704 challenged his transfer order by filing Writ-A No.10326 of 2025 but this Court had dismissed the said petition vide order dated 11.09.2025.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has vehemently argued that though petitioner's case is that transfer order passed against him is punitive and he had been transferred on the basis of certain charges but the transfer order does not disclose that in any manner, he is being transferred as a measure of punishment. It has further been argued that the petitioner is holding a transferable post and is working in a discipline force and if there is any doubt in the minds of the superior authorities in respect of working of the petitioner, then it is always in the domain of said authority to transfer the petitioner from one place to another to ensure better administration of the department.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has finally concluded his arguments by saying that it is well settled proposition of law that transfer is not a punishment and the administrative authorities in exigency of service can always transfer a police personnel from one place to another, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived and thus, is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that the transfer order, on its face, does not disclose that it had been passed with the intention to punish the petitioner. Even if, for the sake of argument, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken to be correct that for the reason that some gang dealing with narcotics drugs was operating and somehow authorities were of the view that for better administration of the concerned police chowki, all the police personnel posted there are to be transferred, then on the petitioner and other police personnel having been transferred from one place to another, it cannot be inferred that they have been transferred by way of punishment.

10. This Court is of the view that by now it is well settled proposition of law that if a government servant is holding a transferable post, his transfer cannot be termed as a punishment.

11. This Court also finds that in the identical circumstances, the writ petition filed by the police personnel, who has been transferred along with the petitioner, had already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025. For ready reference the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.10326 of 2025 is extracted as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Vivek Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27.08.2025 whereby petitioner 3 WRIA No. 11027 of 2025 working on the post of Constable has been transferred from Lucknow to Bhadoi.

3. It has been submitted that petitioner's transfer has been effected as measure of punishment and is therefore in violation of judgement rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and Ors .

4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 10.09.2021, a copy of which is taken on record contains various reports which form the basis of impugned transfer order.

5. From perusal of the reports dated 14.07.2025, 15.07.2025 and 10.08.2025 annexed as annexure no.1 to the instructions, it is evident that petitioner has been transferred in view of narcotics syndicate having been busted and illegal narcotics being recovered from within jurisdiction of the police station where petitioner was posted. The reports clearly indicate negligence of the police personnel with regard to the aforesaid narcotics syndicate being operated under the very nose of the police personnel in the said police station.

6. Although Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) has clearly held that transfer cannot be effected as mode of punishment but in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgement cannot have any universal applicability and in such serious cases, an exception is required to be made where illegal narcotics syndicate is flourishing under the very nose of police personnel attached with particular police station. It is also evident that the reports only indicate negligence on the part of police personnel which may not come within purview of negligence and the aspect as to whether their complicity would come within misconduct or not, would be required to be determined by the authorities themselves.

7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground for indulgence.

8. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed.

9. Parties to bear their own cost."

12. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view that petitioner is working in discipline force and it is always in the domain of his superior authorities to transfer him from one place to another, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order of transfer.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. September 24, 2025 Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) RENU AGARWAL RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Sri P.K.Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

3. The captioned writ petition has been filed assailing therein, the order dated

27.08.2025 passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Establishment, U.P. Lucknow whereby, the petitioner, who is a Constable of civil police, had been transferred from Lucknow to Shamli.

4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer, on its face, is punitive as petitioner had been transferred on the charge that a gang carrying out activities relating to narcotics drugs was operational in the area of Police Chowki Gaughat. It has further been contended that the incident, on the basis of which, petitioner and other police personnel have been transferred, is of 13.07.2025 and on the said date, petitioner was not on duty in Police Chowki Gaughat, Police Station Thakurganj, Police Commissionarate Lucknow, therefore there was no occasion for transferring the petitioner from Lucknow to Shamli.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, on the basis of instructions, has submitted that the petitioner was on duty in the night of 13/14.07.2025 in Police Chowki Gaughat, Police Station Thakurganj, Police Commissionarate Lucknow and a gang operating the activities of narcotics drugs was found and the authorities were of the view that such a gang could not have operated without some sort of involvement of the police personnel, who were on duty in the Police Chowki Gaughat, Police Station Thakurganj, Police Commissionarate Lucknow.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has brought to the notice of this 2 WRIA No. 11027 of 2025 Court that along with the petitioner seven other police personnel have also been transferred for the same reason and one of them, Mr. Harendra Singh, PNO No.182464704 challenged his transfer order by filing Writ-A No.10326 of 2025 but this Court had dismissed the said petition vide order dated 11.09.2025.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has vehemently argued that though petitioner's case is that transfer order passed against him is punitive and he had been transferred on the basis of certain charges but the transfer order does not disclose that in any manner, he is being transferred as a measure of punishment. It has further been argued that the petitioner is holding a transferable post and is working in a discipline force and if there is any doubt in the minds of the superior authorities in respect of working of the petitioner, then it is always in the domain of said authority to transfer the petitioner from one place to another to ensure better administration of the department.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has finally concluded his arguments by saying that it is well settled proposition of law that transfer is not a punishment and the administrative authorities in exigency of service can always transfer a police personnel from one place to another, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived and thus, is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that the transfer order, on its face, does not disclose that it had been passed with the intention to punish the petitioner. Even if, for the sake of argument, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken to be correct that for the reason that some gang dealing with narcotics drugs was operating and somehow authorities were of the view that for better administration of the concerned police chowki, all the police personnel posted there are to be transferred, then on the petitioner and other police personnel having been transferred from one place to another, it cannot be inferred that they have been transferred by way of punishment.

10. This Court is of the view that by now it is well settled proposition of law that if a government servant is holding a transferable post, his transfer cannot be termed as a punishment.

11. This Court also finds that in the identical circumstances, the writ petition filed by the police personnel, who has been transferred along with the petitioner, had already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025. For ready reference the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.10326 of 2025 is extracted as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Vivek Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27.08.2025 whereby petitioner 3 WRIA No. 11027 of 2025 working on the post of Constable has been transferred from Lucknow to Bhadoi.

3. It has been submitted that petitioner's transfer has been effected as measure of punishment and is therefore in violation of judgement rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and Ors .

4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 10.09.2021, a copy of which is taken on record contains various reports which form the basis of impugned transfer order.

5. From perusal of the reports dated 14.07.2025, 15.07.2025 and 10.08.2025 annexed as annexure no.1 to the instructions, it is evident that petitioner has been transferred in view of narcotics syndicate having been busted and illegal narcotics being recovered from within jurisdiction of the police station where petitioner was posted. The reports clearly indicate negligence of the police personnel with regard to the aforesaid narcotics syndicate being operated under the very nose of the police personnel in the said police station.

6. Although Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) has clearly held that transfer cannot be effected as mode of punishment but in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgement cannot have any universal applicability and in such serious cases, an exception is required to be made where illegal narcotics syndicate is flourishing under the very nose of police personnel attached with particular police station. It is also evident that the reports only indicate negligence on the part of police personnel which may not come within purview of negligence and the aspect as to whether their complicity would come within misconduct or not, would be required to be determined by the authorities themselves.

7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground for indulgence.

8. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed.

9. Parties to bear their own cost."

12. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view that petitioner is working in discipline force and it is always in the domain of his superior authorities to transfer him from one place to another, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order of transfer.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. September 24, 2025 Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) RENU AGARWAL RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench