- (1.) The Petitioner, an Inspector in the Civil Police, has sought the quashing of the order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 passed by the Director General of Police (Establishment) with the approval of the Police Establishment Board by which the Petitioner has been transferred from Chandauli to Cooperative Cell, Lucknow after cancelling the earlier transfer order dated 18th December, 2007. The Petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 22nd December, 2010 passed by the Director General of Police by which the earlier order dated 17th December, 2010 passed by him for keeping in abeyance the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010 has been cancelled and a direction has been issued for ensuring compliance of the transfer order dated 8th/9th December, 2010.
(2.) It is stated that the Petitioner was recruited as a Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police in 1998. He was awarded out of turn promotion on the post of Inspector on 11th March, 2002 for showing exemplary courage and bravery. He was also awarded the President's Award for bravery on 18th October, 2002. On 28th November, 2006 the Petitioner arrested three persons found to be in possession of firearms without any valid licence. One of the accused had political connection as he was the husband of the Block Pramukh of Behraini, District Chandauli and a close associate of the then local Member of Legislative Assembly Sri Ram Kishan Yadav who later became the Member of Parliament. The aforesaid arrest annoyed the local M.L.A. who wrote to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi to forthwith suspend the Petitioner. The Petitioner was then suspended on 1st December, 2006 for the reason that he did not behave with the local Member of Legislative Assembly Ram Kishan Yadav in a manner expected from a Sub-Inspector. The suspension order was assailed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 66493 of 2006 in which an interim order was granted on 8th December, 2006 staying the suspension order dated 1st December, 2006. The Petitioner was then transferred from District Chandauli to District Jaunpur by the order dated 8th/9th December, 2006 which order was also stayed by the Court on 14th December, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 68231 of 2006. These orders were not complied with as a result of which the Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition in which notices were issued. However, further transfer orders dated 20th February, 2007 and 21st February, 2007 were passed which were assailed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10822 of 2007 which petition was dismissed but in Special Appeal No. 374 of 2007 filed by the Petitioner the Court passed an order on 3rd April, 2007 staying the transfer order and the relieving order and the portion of the order is quoted below: 5. Apart from the breach of the very relevant instruction of the Election Commission, serious malafides are attributed by the Appellant to point out as to why this transfer order is affected. It is placed on record that certain persons, who were carrying arms, were arrested by the Appellant and the M.L.A. of the ruling party from the particular area tried to interfere with it. He has placed on record a letter written by the M.L.A. dated 30.11.2006 addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police specifically saying that the Appellant has arrested the persons who were supporters of the M.L.A. and the Appellant should immediately be suspended, so that he does not interfere with the activities of the M.L.A. concerned. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police ought to have taken action against the M.L.A. himself for interfering into the lawful duty of the police officer but what has happened that the request of the M.L.A. was accepted and the Appellant was suspended. This led to the filing of a writ petition, wherein the order of suspension was stayed. Thereafter the Appellant was transferred. That order was also challenged and was stayed on an earlier occasion. 7. Now it is sought to be contended that the Appellant has completed three years at the particular place and, therefore, he is required to be transferred. 8. This background of the matter has got to be noted and when the officer is relieved on the eve of the election, undoubtedly this raises the suspicion. These serious allegations of the mala fides will have to be answered by the Respondents. 9. What has happened is that the petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the first date and, therefore, the Respondent did not get any opportunity of filing counter affidavit. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 5 states that the Respondents would like to file a counter affidavit. He was specifically asked as to whether the Respondents were agreeable that the Appellant be allowed to join back at least for a couple of months, but he has stated that his instructions do not permit to agree with it. Thereafter he was also specifically asked as to whether the matter could be sent back to the Single Judge by granting stay. To that also, his answer is that his instructions are to file counter affidavit. That being so, this aspect will be gone into the appeal court. 11. In view of what is stated above, the matter requires consideration. 12. The appeal is admitted. Notice to be issued to Respondent No. 6, who is M.L.A. of the concerned area. The Respondents 2 and 3 will file counter affidavit to this appeal to explain their role in this matter. 13. In the meanwhile and until further hearing, there will be interim stay of the order of transfer as well as order of relieving the Appellant from the concerned police station. The Respondents 1 to 5 are directed to allow the Appellant to resume on his duty forthwith by relieving whosoever is the officer-in-charge of the police station. The Respondent No. 2 and particularly the Respondent No. 3 will be responsible, if any harassment is caused to the Appellant in discharge of his duty while functioning at the concerned police station. 14. Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 5 needs two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The to stand over to 24th of April, 2007 by which date the Respondents may file counter affidavit." (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) The Respondents thereafter proceeded to again suspend the Petitioner by the order dated 22nd June, 2007 mentioning therein that he was careless in discharging his duties. This suspension order was assailed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 28818 of 2007 which was dismissed with a direction to the authorities to conclude the disciplinary enquiry within three months. Even during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the Petitioner was transferred by the order dated 21st December, 2007 which transfer order was assailed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 267 of 2008 in which an interim order was passed on 17th January, 2008 staying the transfer order.;