Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
List after expiry of the aforesaid order.
By means of this writ petition, transfer order dated 15.06.2010 has been challenged on the ground that the same has not been approved/made by the Police Establishment Board constituted in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (8) SCC page 1. It has further been submitted that both the petitioners are Sub Inspectors and holding the post of Station House Officers of the police stations in District Unnao and neither any disciplinary proceedings was initiated against them during their posting at Unnao nor they have completed two years tenure. It has been pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra) in para 31(3) has observed as under:
"Minimum tenure of IG of police and other officers (3) Police officers on operational duties in the field like the Inspector General of Police in- charge Zone, Deputy Inspector General of Police in-charge Range, Superintendent of Police in-charge District and station House Officer in-charge of a Police Station shall also have a prescribed minimum tenure of two years unless it is found necessary to remove them prematurely following disciplinary proceedings against them or their conviction in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption or if the incumbent is otherwise incapacitated from discharge his responsibilities. This would be subject to promotion and retirement of the officer."
It has been submitted that earlier also the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Writ Petitions No.5951 (S/S) 2009 and 5954 (S/S) of 2009 against the order of transfers made in the year 2009 and this Court has stayed the operation of the transfer order with the observation as under:
"At the face of record the impugned order of transfer firstly; has not been passed by the Police Establishment Board and secondly; it is politically motivated.
It is unfortunate that decision has been taken not by the executives or the Police Establishment Board rather by the officer of Secretariat of the Chief Minister of the State. In case, there is any complaint against the petitioner then that should have been inquired and appropriate decision should have been taken by the Police Establishment Board with regard to transfer or for misconduct. It appears that for extraneous reasons the impugned order of transfer has been passed.
In view of above, the further operation of the impugned order of transfer as contained in Annexure-1 to 3 to the writ petition shall remain stayed and petitioner shall be permitted to discharge duty at the present place of posting with due salary."
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned transfer order dated 15.06.2010 (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition) so far as it relates to the petitioners, shall remain stayed provided the new incumbents have not joined on the post of the petitioners.
Order Date :- 22.6.2010 ank