- (1.) The head constables and constables are the lowest in the hierarchy of non gazetted officers of the Police Force. They play a vital role in maintaining law and order, preventing and detecting crime and in helping courts of law punish the guilty. This bunch of petitions is by such officers of the Police Force, aggrieved by Government Order dated 7.6.2014 imposing ban on their posting in districts adjoining their home district. The consequential transfer orders are also under challenge. As common questions of law and fact are involved in these cases, same are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the Government Order dated 7.6.2014 is wholly illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as it does not contain any reason for cancellation of the previous Government Order dated 20.3.2012, whereby, relaxation was granted in posting of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home district, by amending Government Order dated 11.6.1986. It was further contended that the Government Order in question is a result of political vendetta, as the Government feels that its defeat in the Lok Sabha election is on account of non-extension of co-operation by the petitioners. In other words, the impugned Government Order has been issued to teach lesson to the petitioners. It was further submitted that the transfer policy is contained in the Police Regulations, which has statutory force and the Government Order in question being not referable to any of the provisions contained under Paragraph 520-526 thereof, is thus, contrary to the statutory provisions. The impugned transfer orders have not been issued on administrative grounds or in exigencies of service, thus, cannot be sustained in law. The personal hardship of the petitioners has not been considered. In various cases, transfer orders have been passed in mid session, entailing great hardship to the petitioners and members of their family. It was further urged that in any case, the impugned Government Order can only be applied prospectively and there is no mandate for transferring the incumbents posted in bordering districts forthwith. In some of the writ petitions, particularly in Writ Petition No.39723 of 2014, Sri B.C. Rai Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioners, therein, are members of Armed Police, who are not concerned with day-to-day maintenance of law and order in the State. Consequently, they cannot be brought within the purview of the impugned Government Order. It is further contended that the Government Order in question is not referable to Section 46 of the U.P. Police Act, 1861, which confers power in the State to make rules and thus, the impugned Government Order is wholly contrary to the provisions of Section 46. The impugned transfers have been made with the approval of the Regional Police Establishment Boards, the constitution of which is contrary to the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India, 2006 8 SCC 1 and thus, the transfers made on its recommendation, are wholly illegal.
(3.) On the other hand, learned standing counsel placing reliance on the letter dated 28.5.2014 written by Director General of Police to the Principal Secretary, Home, U.P. Government, Lucknow contended that past experience had shown that constables and head constables posted in districts bordering their home district were found missing from their place of posting during nights. They go to their home, being nearby their place of posting. They were thus not available in emergency, adversely affecting law and order. It was further found that on account of their posting in bordering districts, they were interfering in trivial matters, being connected with one party or the other. This impacts their impartiality and the image of the Police Force. Consequently, the Government, in order to improve law and order situation in the State and efficiency of the police force, issued the impugned Government Order dated 7.6.2014. The allegation of political vendetta in issuing the impugned Government Order is specifically denied. It was contended that the decision has been taken in public interest. It was further submitted that the police force is quite different and distinguishable from other State services. This is borne out from the fact that there is a separate entry relating to 'police' being Entry No.2 in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The police force is regulated by the Police Act, 1861, the Rules framed thereunder, the Police Regulations and the executive instructions in the nature of Government Orders. It is contended that the impugned Government Order only supplements the existing provisions under the Police Regulations and is, in no manner, contrary to it. It was further submitted that the constitution of Police Establishment Board, without Director General of Police as its Chairman, has been found to be valid and legal by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 7 ADJ 315 and the Division Bench in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. C.P. Ravindra Singh and others, 2011 2 ADJ 177. It was further submitted that under Section 2 of the Police Act, the entire police establishment is deemed to be one Police Force, as such, the members of the Armed Police Force cannot be treated differently, as compared to those working under Civil Police, as contended by the petitioners posted in the Armed Police. Validity of Regional Police Establishment Boards:-;