NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer from the post of Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand to Director General -cum -Commandant General of Home Guards and Fire Service, Jharkhand, issued by Notification, being Memo No. 8/M -2 -110/2007 -2969/Ranchi dated 3 rd August, 2007 (Annexure -3).
(2.) THE petitioner is a senior I.P.S. Officer. He was made Director General - cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand in the month of September, 2006. According to the petitioner, his transfer is premature, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is unsustainable for the following reasons: (i) Once being appointed as Director General -cum -inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, he is entitled to remain as such for a fixed tenure of two years irrespective of date of superannuation, as per the direction of the Honble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . (ii) Once appointed as Director General -cum inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, he can be removed only with consultation of the State Security Commission and only in the case where action is taken against him under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or following conviction in a Court of Law in a criminal offence or in a case of corruption or otherwise in capacitating him from discharging his duty. (iii) The petitioner, having been posted on 27 th September, 2006, is entitled to hold the office of the Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand till 26 th September, 2008 irrespective of his date of retirement in December, 2007. (iv) By the premature transfer from the post of Director General -cum - Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, the petitioner, who is entitled to hold the said post till 26 th September, 2008, has been deprived of the extended period of service for which he was entitled to hold the office. His tenure cannot be curtailed. (v) The respondents are bound to comply with the directions of the Honble Supreme Court in Prakash Singls case (Supra). It has been observed that in view of far reaching changes after the enactment of Police Act, 1861, the Government of India had appointed a National Police Commission on 15th November, 1977 for the purpose of fresh examination of the role and performance of the police, both, as a law enforcing agency, as also an institution to protect the rights of citizens. The Commission examined all issued and, after a period of three and half years, submitted its report in the year 1979, recommending certain basic reforms for the effective functioning of the police to enable it to promote the dynamic role of law and to render impartial service to the people. (vi) The said recommendations of the Commission were not implemented. (vii) A report was filed before the Honble Supreme Court with recommendations, which, inter alia, recommends for: a. Provision for State Security Commission at State level; b. Transparent procedure for appointment of the Police Chief and the desirability of giving him minimum fixed tenure; c. Separation of investigation work from maintenance of law and order; and d. A New Police Act, which should reflect the democratic aspirations of the people. (viii) Other Committees, such as Malimath Committee for reforms of police like Criminal Justice System and the report for improvement of Criminal Justice System has also recommended in the similar lines. (ix) The Supreme Court of India, taking note of the said recommendations of the Commissions/Committees, passed comprehensive directions in Prakash Singhs case (Supra), giving guidelines/directions to the Central Government, State Government and Union Territories for the purpose of reforms of the administration and working of the police force till framing of appropriate legislation. (x) The petitioner, who is a senior most I.P.S. Office of 1972 batch, was appointed as Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand on 27 th September, 2006 after the said judgment of the Honble Supreme Court. (xi) Several resolutions were also passed in compliance of the said order/direction of the Honble Supreme Court. (xii) The petitioner was also appointed as Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand in compliance of the guidelines of the Honble Supreme Court. (xiii) The petitioner, thereafter, discharged his duties as Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police to the satisfaction of all concerned. During his tenure parliamentary election in the State was peace fully and successfully held, despite Naxal problems. He also succeeded in controlling the crime and making recruitment in Police Department. (xiv) The petitioner, all of a sudden, was served with the impugned notification dated 3 rd August, 2007 whereby he has been removed from the post of Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand and in his place, one Sri V.D. Ram, who is junior to the petitioner, has been posted as Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand. (xv) The impugned order of transfer is malicious, as the same has been issued at the behest of an M.L.A., who happens to be closely related with Respondent No. 3. (xvi) The petitioner has challenged the said transfer order before the Honble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 450 of 2007, which was disposed of as withdrawn. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents, seriously objecting the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court after the same was disposed of by the Supreme Court as withdrawn. The maintainability of the petition has been also challenged on the ground that the petitioner being the member of Indian Police Service (for short I.P.S.), his case falls within the ambit of the provisions of Section 14 read with Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondents further contested the writ petition on the following grounds; (i) The impugned transfer order has already been given effect to and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner himself has joined and has been working on the post of Director General -cum -Commandant General of Home Guards and Fire Services, Jharkhand vide his joining report dated 13th August, 2006 (Annexure -A). (ii) Sri V.D. Ram, Respondent No. 3, who has been appointed as Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand in place of the petitioner, has also joined the post and has been working as such which is evident from his joining report dated 4th August, 2007 (Annexure -B). (iii) The petitioner has withdrawn his writ petition filed in the Supreme Court without obtaining any permission to approach this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India.
(3.) MR . Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondents objection that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is without any substance.;