1. The petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order of transfer passed by the respondent authority transferring the petitioner from Ahmedabad to Junagadh. The petitioner has further prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 01.10.2001 and to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Unarmed Head Constable.
2. It is the case of the petitioner who is a police constable since 1980 that in December 2000, when the then Superintending Police inspected the work place where the petitioner was performing his duties, he found that the petitioner was dressed in civil clothes for which an explanation was sought for. Thereafter, when the petitioner received his salary, he found that Rs. 20/- was deducted as fine for the said indiscipline. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner asked for a receipt of the said fine, the same was not granted. The petitioner took up the said issue with the higher authorities in the form of letters and appeal but to no avail. It is further the case of the petitioner that finally as a counter-blast to the appeals preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner was transferred from Ahmedabad to Junagadh vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Mr. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer is based on a malafide intention of the respondents as the petitioner raised grievance against the authorities for getting the receipt of the fine. He submitted that only with a view to see that in future no other police personnel may raise his voice against such punishments, the petitioner was transferred.
3.1 Mr. Desai submitted that as the seniority list of the Police Constables is maintained district wise and the petitioner has been put at the bottom of the seniority list of Junagadh district which is totally unjust and uncalled for. He submitted that after he was transferred from Ahmedabad to Junagadh some of the persons who are junior to the petitioner in Ahmedabad District were promoted as Unarmed Head Constables vide order dated 01.10.2001 meaning thereby that the said order of transfer has resulted into a penal order and due to that the petitioner had not been promoted.
3.2 Mr. Desai submitted that the petitioner has been penalised twice by first transferring him to Junagadh and thereafter by placing him at the bottom of the seniority list which has affected his promotion as well. He submitted that the action of the respondents is totally illegal and mala fide and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned AGP appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent authority and submitted that the decision is taken in public interest and to maintain discipline in the police force where discipline is the foremost. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioner within the department was very high handed and he had formed part of a union which is totally uncalled for a in a police force.
5. This Court before proceeding with the matter on merits had put forth a suggestion to the petitioner that the impugned order can be recalled and he may join his duty at Ahmedabad but shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Ahmedabad district. However, the said suggestion is not accepted by the petitioner and therefore the matter is proceeded on merits.
5.1 The averments made in paras 3 to 5 in the affidavit-in- reply read as under:
“3. I say that the petitioner has completed 20 years of service in police department and he is aware about the discipline and rules of police. In spite of that the petitioner remained present without uniform on duty on 8.8.2000 and 9.8.2000 and therefore the competent authority imposed punishment of Rs. 20 towards the fine and the same was deducted from his monthly pay bill of January 2001. I say and submit that as the petitioner did not pay the said amount of fine in cash the said amount was deducted from his regular pay and therefore no receipt was given to him. Further the petitioner also received the salary for the month of January, 2001 with objection and thenafter again and again he demanded for receipt. Further he also demanded for overtime claiming that he has worked for more than eight hours.
I say and submit that under the Bombay Police Manual the government servant working under the Police Department has to work for 24 hours in emergency. Further the police department has to maintain law and order and duty is towards public at most and therefore, if the petitioner demands overtime continuously in that case it would create adverse effect to other staff.
4. I further say and submit that the Director General and Inspector General of Police by his order dated 23.04.2001 transferred the petitioner from Ahmedabad to Junagadh in public interest and the petitioner was informed to resume duty immediately, but when the police inspector approached the petitioner, he was not available and therefore the order of transfer was placed at the conspicuous part of his house in presence of panchas and accordingly he was relieved from Ahmedabad City with effect from 29.4.2001.
5. I say and submit that under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 the Government employee, working under the Police Department is supposed to work for 24 hours. In spite of that the petitioner started union work and instigated other employees of the department not to work for more than eight hours. Further I say and submitt hat even the police union is not recognized and the government has banned the union activities. In spite of that petitioner's activities were such that due to his behaviour the moral of the police went down and therefore to maintain discipline in the police force the decision is taken in public interest.”
6. It is required to be noted that the petitioner is an employee of the police force, where discipline is of paramount consideration. Any indiscipline would seriously affect the work of the force and the alleged indiscipline as stated in the affidavit-in-reply cannot be pardoned on all the occasions.
7. While considering the quantum of punishment the role of the administrative authority is primary and that of the court is secondary confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused infringement of rights. I am of the view that this Court should not interfere with the administrative authority's decision on the quantum of punishment which in the present case is a tranfer order unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court. Discipline is the essential component for efficient functioning in case of the respondents and to maintain the same it would be open to the competent authority to impose punishment. Moreover, more than 11 years have passed and therefore this Court does not think it fit to cause any interference.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//