- (1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 5.5.2009 passed by learned Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23613 of 2009, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') was employed as Constable in the Civil Police. By order dated 30.6.2007, he was transferred from Civil Police to Government Railway Police. He assailed the said order in the writ petition, inter alia, contending that his transfer from Civil Police to Government Railway Police is in violation of Regulation 525 of the U.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). According to the appellant, as he remained in the Civil Police for more than 10 years, in view of the language of Regulation 525 of the Regulations, he cannot be transferred to Government Railway Police. The aforesaid submission did not find favour with the learned Judge and the learned Judge declined to interfere with the order of transfer and dismissed the writ petition. Mr. Satish Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that as the appellant remained in Civil Police for more than 10 years, he cannot be transferred to other branches of the police force. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) ADJ 484 (SC) and our attention has been drawn to the following paragraphs from the said judgment: "6. Learned counsel for the State of U.P. pointed out that Regulation 525 in first part puts a condition of more than two years but less than ten years of service whereas under the second part of the said Regulation a general power has been given for transfer of any police officer from one branch to another branch or from the police service of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh Police with the prior sanction of the Inspector General. 7. We regret to say that we do not agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the State of U.P. Second part of Regulation 525 gives power of transfer in respect of a Police Officer and not a police constable. The police constable is covered by the first part of Regulation 525 and once there is a specific provision for transfer of constables in the first part of Regulation 525 then the second part of the said regulation cannot be said to deal with them. 8. Now, in this legal background, we will revert back to the facts of the present case. 9. It is admitted by learned counsel for the State that the respondent herein has put in more than ten years of service and he has been transferred from civil police to armed police. Therefore, in our opinion, the order of the Superintendent of Police transferring the respondent from civil police to the armed police is bad as he did not have the power in terms of Regulation 525. The said Regulations are statutory in character as they have been framed under Section 46 of the Police Act, 1861. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police has breached the statutory Regulations."
(3.) MR . Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the very assumption of the appellant that he has been transferred to a separate branch is absolutely misconceived. He further submits that the Civil Police and the Government Railway Police are the branches of General Police Force and a Constable can be transferred from one branch to another.;