- (1.) The petitioners, who are Constables and Head Constables in the U.P. Police, have sought the quashing of the order dated 26th April, 2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment, Uttar Pradesh for transfer of the Head Constables Civil Police (Special Category) and Constables, Civil Police pursuant to the decision taken by the Police Establishment Board on 26th April, 2010. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the Government Order dated 19th February, 2010 as also Clause 5 of the general transfer policy dated 21st April, 2010 issued by the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Government.
(2.) The Police Establishment Board took the decision in view of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 which provides that Head Constables and Constables should not be posted in their home district or in districts adjoining their home district. The Government Order dated 19th February, 2010 exempts the implementation of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 for such police personnel who have been posted for security of VIPs' with the approval of the Government. Clause 5 of the transfer policy dated 21st April, 2010 of the State Government provides that the said policy shall not be applicable for the Police Department.
(3.) Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioners has made following submissions: 1. The decision taken by the Police Establishment Board for transfer of Constables/Head Constables on the basis of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 is bad in law since it fails to take notice of the subsequent Government Order dated 25th March, 1995 which has amended Clause 5 of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986. It is his submission that by the subsequent Government Order dated 25th March, 1995 the condition imposed in Clause 5 of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 that the Head Constables/Constables posted in home district or in districts adjoining home district shall be transferred has been diluted and it has been provided that they shall be transferred if they are posted in home district or in police stations adjoining the home district. 2. Though the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2006 8 SCC 1 directed for constitution of 'State Security Commission' in every State to ensure that the State Government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State Police and for laying down the broad policy guidelines so that the State Police always acts according to the laws of land and the Constitution of the country, but the State Government has not constituted the 'State Security Commission'. It is his submission that it is only the 'State Security Commission' that can take a decision to accept or not to accept the principles laid down in the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 and, therefore, the Police Establishment Board could not have taken a decision to transfer the Head Constables/Constables for implementation of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986. The decision taken by the Police Establishment Board is, therefore, contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra) and deserves to be set aside. 3. A perusal of the decision taken by the Police Establishment Board on 26th April, 2010, which has been produced at the time of hearing of the writ petition, shows that the decision has been taken in a callous manner without application of mind and without giving reasons. The decision also does not show any independent application of mind by the Police Establishment Board which only took a formal decision to accept the proposal placed before it.;