Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurSunil Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 September, 2021Author:Dinesh MehtaBench:Dinesh MehtaHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                      JODHPUR\n              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10353/2021\n\nSubhash Chandra S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Ugras,\nPost Khara, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of\n       Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n2.     The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.\n3.     The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.\n4.     The Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.\n                                                                ----Respondents\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s)        :     Mr.   H.S. Sidhu\n                               Mr.   Harish Purohit\n                               Mr.   Mahaveer Bishnoi\n                               Mr.   Sushil Solanki\n                               Mr.   S.P. Sharma\n                               Mr.   Vikas Bijarnia\n                               Mr.   Jayram Saran\n                               Mr.   Vijay Bishnoi\n                               Mr.   Binja Ram\n                               Mr.   Jai Naveen\n                               Mr.   Khet Singh Rajpurohit\n                               Mr.   Deepak Nehra\n                               Mr.   Manish Kumar Pitaliya\n                               Mr.   Jamta Ram\n                               Mr.   Tanwar Singh\n                               Mr.   J.S. Bhaleria\n                               Mr.   Rajpal Singh\n                               Mr.   Keshav Bhati\n                               Mr.   Hapu Ram\n                               Mr.   Pritam Solanki\n                               Mr.   Bhanwaru Ram\n                               Mr.   R.R. Bishnoi\n                               Mr.   Ramesh Kumar\n                               Mr.   Trilok Joshi\nFor Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with\n                               Mr. Kailash Choudhary\n\n\n\n\n                    (Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)\n                                                (2 of 21)                  [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n\n\n                             JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA\n\n                                   CAV JUDGMENTReserved on : 26.08.2021\nReportable                                         Pronounced on : 03.09.2021\n\n     (1)     Instant writ petition and the writ petitions enlisted in the\n\n             appended schedule, involve common questions of facts and\n\n             law and hence, they are being decided conjointly. The facts\n\n             are almost identical so much so, the order under challenge is\n\n             also one, issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan,\n\n             Jaipur on 05.08.2021.(2)     The seniority of police personnel, working on the post of\n\n             Constable and Head Constable is maintained at district level,\n\n             whereas seniority of Assistant Sub-Inspectors is maintained\n\n             at range level. In other words, the posts of Constable and\n\n             Head     Constable         are       district        cadre    Posts     and\n\n             appointments/promotions to these posts are made on district\n\n             level; their appointing authority is the Superintendent of\n\n             Police of concerned district.(3)     Whereas, the post of Head Constable is filled-up 100% by\n\n             way of promotion from amongst Constables on the basis of\n\n             their seniority in the district.(4)     The post of Assistant Sub-Inspector is to be filled in 100% by\n\n             promotion from Head Constables and the same is a range\n\n             level post. Seniority of ASIs is maintained at range level.\n\n     (5)     By way of present writ petitions, the petitioners herein, being\n\n             Constable/Head Constable/Assistant Sub-Inspector working\n\n             in the Police Department, have challenged their respective(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(3 of 21)                   [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n\n      transfers   affected     by    the     above       referred    order   dated\n\n      05.08.2021, inter alia, contending that the same is contrary\n\n      to Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules,\n\n      1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989').\n\n(6)   It is to be noted that by way of order dated 05.08.2021,\n\n      various Constables, Head-Constables and Assistant Sub-\n\n      Inspectors have been transferred out of their range. The\n\n      basic ground, on which the petitioners have challenged their\n\n      transfer is, that since the posts of Constable and Head-\n\n      Constable are district cadre posts, they cannot be transferred\n\n      out of their cadre/district. Similarly, as the post of Assistant\n\n      Sub-Inspector is a range cadre post, they (ASIs) cannot be\n\n      transferred out of their cadre/range.(7)   Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that\n\n      consequent to petitioners' transfers in the range other than\n\n      the District/Range they were appointed and working, their\n\n      seniority will be adversely affected. It was also argued that\n\n      their transfer will result into change of their appointing\n\n      authority, which cannot be done by the respondents, except\n\n      with the consent of the concerned employee.\n\n(8)   Inviting Court's attention towards Rule 26 of the Rules of\n\n      1989, learned counsel argued that not only the vacancy for\n\n      the posts of Constable and Head-Constable is determined\n\n      district-wise but also the recruitment on such posts is made\n\n      district-wise. Highlighting that appointment orders of the\n\n      petitioners, who are Constables/Head-Constables, have been\n\n      issued by the concerned Superintendent of Police, it was\n\n      argued that their transfer out of range (obviously, out of\n\n      district) is contrary to the Rules.(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(4 of 21)                [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n\n\n(9)   In order to buttress the above argument, Mr. Sidhu, learned\n\n      counsel for the petitioners, relied upon the judgment of\n\n      Hon'ble the Supreme Court, rendered in the case ofJawahar\n\n      Lal Nehru University Vs. Dr. K.S. Jawatkar & Ors., reported in\n\n      1989 Supp (1) SCC 679 and more particular para No.7\n\n      thereof, the same is being reproduced hereunder:-"7. In this appeal the main contention of the\n           appellant is that the respondent was appointed at\n           the Centre of Post-gradate Sutides. Imphal, and\n           when the Centre was transferred to the Manipur\n           University,   his    services   were    automatically\n           transferred to that University, and consequently he\n           could not claim to be an employee of the appellant\n           University. The argument proceeds on the\n           assumption that the Centre of Post-graduate\n           Studies at Imphal was an independent entity which\n           existed by itself and was not a department of the\n           appellant University. The submission proceeds on a\n           fallacy. The Centre of Post-graduate Studies was\n           set up at Imphal as an activity of the appellant\n           University. To give expression to that activity, the\n           appellant University set up and organized the\n           Centre at Imphal and appointed a teaching and\n           administrative staff to man it. Since the Centre\n           represented an activity of the appellant University\n           the teaching and administrative staff must be\n           understood as employees of the appellant\n           University. In the case of the respondent, there\n           can be no doubt whatever that he was, and\n           continues to be, an employee of the appellant\n           University. There is also no doubt that his\n           employment could not be transferred by the\n           appellant University to the Manipur University\n           without his consent, notwithstanding any statutory\n           provision to that effect whether in theManipur\n           University Actor elsewhere. The contract of service\n           entered into by the respondent was a contract with\n           the appellant University and no law can convert\n           that contract into a contract between the\n           respondent and the Manipur University without\n           simultaneously making it, either expressly or by\n           necessary implication, subject to the respondent's\n           consent.When the Manipur University Actprovides\n           for the transfer of the services of the staff working\n           at the Centre of Post-graduate      Studies, Imphal,\n           to employment in the Manipur University, it must(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(5 of 21)                [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n          be construed as a provision enabling such transfer\n          of employment but only on the assumption that\n          the employee concerned is a consenting party to\n          such transfer. It makes no difference that the\n          respondent was not shown in the list of Assistant\n          Professors of the appellant University or that the\n          provision was not indicated in its conception of the\n          status of the respondent. The position in law is\n          clear, that no employee can be transferred, without\n          his consent, from one employer to another. The\n          consent may be express or implied. We do not find\n          it necessary to refer to any case law in support of\n          this conclusion."(10) Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel appearing for some of the\n\n     petitioners took the Court through paras Nos.14 and 15 of\n\n     the reply and argued that the transfers in question are\n\n     punitive in nature and thus, the same are liable to be\n\n     quashed.(11) He invited Court's attention towards the Circular dated\n\n     28.12.2020, issued by the Director General of Police, in\n\n     which it is provided that if a Head Constable is transferred\n\n     from one district to another, he shall be placed at the bottom\n\n     of the seniority list of the Head-Constables of such district.\n\n     He argued that it has been consistent practice of the\n\n     respondents to place a Constable/Head Constable, who has\n\n     been transferred from other district, at the bottom of the\n\n     seniority and thus, the impugned transfer will result into\n\n     arbitrary and impermissible downward movement of their\n\n     seniority position.(12) Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, appearing for the respondent-State firstly, invited Court's attention towards an order dated\n\n     10.08.2021, issued by the Additional Director General of\n\n     Police Headquarters and submitted that seniority of the\n\n     Police Personnel transferred vide orders Nos.2259, 2264 and(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(6 of 21)                 [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n\n     2265 dated 05.08.2021 shall be maintained Districtwise/\n\n     Rangewise in their own District/Range.(13) He referred to the provisions contained inSection 34of the\n\n     Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the\n\n     Act of 2007') and argued that petitioners can be posted\n\n     anywhere in the State.(14) Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that\n\n     transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioners, being\n\n     members of disciplined force, are obliged to honour their\n\n     respective   orders,     as    they      have      been   transferred   in\n\n     administrative exigency and public interest.\n\n(15) Learned Additional Advocate General heavily relied upon the\n\n     judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case\n\n     ofState of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Kashmir Singh & Anr.,\n\n     reported in (2010) 13 SCC 306 to contend that petitioners\n\n     can be transferred out of District/Range. The relevant paras,\n\n     which he read out in the Court, are as under:-\n\n        "11. Thus, a plain perusal of the Punjab Police Rules\n        shows that transfer can be done from one district to\n        another district or even to another range, and there is\n        no absolute prohibition for doing so. However, in such\n        a case, the seniority of Constables and Head\n        Constables at the district level and of ASIs and Sis at\n        the range level is maintained in the parent\n        district/range despite the transfer. Promotion/\n        confirmation is also given strictly as per the seniority\n        in the parent district/range level, as per Memo\n        No.43515-22/E-(III) dated 10-8-2010.12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and\n        the courts should be very reluctant to interfere in\n        transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal.\n        In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and\n        postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of\n        the State authorities concerned which are in the best\n        position to assess the necessities of the administrative\n        requirements of the situation. The administrative\n        authorities concerned may be of the opinion that more(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(7 of 21)                  [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n        policemen are required in any particular district and/or\n        another range than in another, depending upon their\n        assessment of the administrative matters, and it is\n        well settled that courts must not ordinarily interfere in\n        administrative matters and should maintain judicial\n        restraint, videTata Cellular v. Union of India.14. In our opinion, the High Court has taken a totally\n        impractical view of the matter. If the view of the High\n        Court is to prevail, great difficulties will be created for\n        the State administration since it will not be able to\n        transfer/deploy its police force from one place where\n        there may be relative peace of another district or\n        region/range in the State where there may be\n        disturbed law and order situation and hence\n        requirement of more police. Courts should not, in our\n        opinion, interfere with purely administrative matters\n        except where absolutely necessary on account of\n        violation of any fundamental or other legal right of the\n        citizen. After all, the State administration cannot\n        function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its\n        back. As Holmes, J. of the US Supreme Court pointed\n        out, there must be some free play of the joints\n        provided to the executive authorities."(16) In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that\n\n     the Rules of 1989, having been promulgated in exercise of\n\n     powers underArticle 309of the Constitution of India are\n\n     substantive in nature. While contending that the area of\n\n     operation and scope of the provisions of the Act of 2007 is\n\n     entirely different, it was argued that the Rules of 1989 would\n\n     prevail over the provisions of the Act of 2007.\n\n(17) It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners thatSection 34of the Act of 2007 provides for "Deployment" and\n\n     not "Transfer". Elaborating their argument further, learned\n\n     counsel submitted that deployment has a different meaning\n\n     altogether - it refers to movement of police force or armed\n\n     forces to another location in order to meet with the\n\n     exigencies;    whereas         "Transfer"         suggests    posting    an\n\n     individual to another place in administrative exigency. They(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(8 of 21)                [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n\n     added that deployment of the police force is an exercise to\n\n     be done in emergency situation, whereas transfer is a\n\n     routine incidence of service, to be done within the framework\n\n     of law and policy made in this regard.(18) Learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court's attention\n\n     towards the preamble of the Act of 2007 and argued that the\n\n     Act of 2007 has been enacted to deal with working style of\n\n     the police force and the Act is not intended to deal with the\n\n     service conditions of the police personnel. Their argument\n\n     was, that in the matters relating to transfer(s) of police\n\n     personnel, the Rules of 1989 shall have primacy.\n\n(19) Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following\n\n     judgments:-"(i)    Yad Ram Vs. State & Ors. (SBCWP No.16818/2017,\n             decided on 20.12.2017)(ii)    Smt. Premlata Vs. State & Ors. (SBCWP No.216/2015,\n             decided on 25.03.2015)(iii)   Harendra Vs. State & Ors. (SBCWP No.3656/2020,\n             decided on 02.02.2021)"(20) Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n\n(21) Before proceeding further, it will be apposite to have an\n\n     appraisal of statutory provisions, germane for the question\n\n     involved in these cases.(22) Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989:-"26. Eligibility for promotion. - (1) Except in the\n        case of specialised/technical post to be specified from\n        time to time by the Director General-cum-Inspector\n        General of Police, the persons enumerated in Column\n        5 of Section I, II and IV of the Schedule-I holding\n        substantive rank, shall be eligible in the case of\n        Constable on District/Unit Battalion basis, Head\n        Constables/Assistant Sub-Inspectors on Range basis,\n        and Sub- Inspectors/Platoon Commanders on State(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(9 of 21)                [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\nbasis, for promotion to the posts specified in column\n2, of the Schedule-I subject to their possessing such\nminimum qualification and experience as are specified\nin Column 6 of the Schedule-I:Provided that for the purpose of this Rule, promotions\nfrom the rank of Constables to that of Head\nConstables and from Head Constables to that of Sub-\nInspectors, shall be made on unit/Range and for\npromotions from the rank of Head Constables to that\nof Platoon Commanders on Range basis in RAC,\n"Range" shall mean State basis.Explanation.- (i) In case direct recruitment to a post\nhas been made earlier than regular selection for\npromotion in a particular year, such of the persons\nwho are or were eligible for appointment to that post\nby both the methods of recruitment and have been\nappointed by direct recruitment first, shall also be\nconsidered for promotion.(ii) In the case of specialised/technical posts, so\nspecified in sub-rule (1) above the eligibility for\npromotion of District/Unit/Battalion/Range/State basis\nof persons holding substantive ranks and enumerated\nin Column 5 of Section I, II and IV of the Schedule-I\nshall be laid down by the Director General- cum-Inspector General of Police.(iii) The persons enumerated in Column 5 of Section\nIII of the Schedule-I holding substantive rank, shall be\neligible for promotion to posts specified in Column-2\non State basis, in the Police-Tele-Communications\nDirectorate, subject to their possessing such minimum\nqualifications and experience as are specified in\nColumn 6 of Schedule-I.(iv) The persons eligible for promotion should have\ncompleted the requisite number of years of service as\nlaid down in Column-6 of Schedule-I on first of April of\nthe year in which the qualifying examination is held.\n\nExplanation.- "State basis" in this rule shall mean all\nmembers of a particular category in the entire State in\norder of seniority. The combined seniority of such\nofficial under different Appointing Authority shall be\ndetermined on such principles and basis as may be\ndecided by the Government in consultation with the\nDeptt. of Personnel:Provided that after the determination of the vacancies,\nthe applications of candidates not exceeding six times\nthe number of vacancies, out of the senior most\neligible members of service, shall be entertained for\nappearance in Part-I of the examination."(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(10 of 21)               [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n\n\n(23)Section 2(1)(j)of the Act of 2007:-"Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context\n       otherwise requires,-xxx      xxx xxx(j) "Police Personnel" shall include Police Officers\n       and all other persons for whom the appointing\n       authority is the Director General of Police or an officer\n       subordinate to him."(24)Section 34of the Act of 2007:-"34. Police officers may be deployed in any part\n       of the State.- Every Police Officer may, at any time,\n       be deployed as a Police Officer in any part of the\n       State."(25) The Rules of 1989 contain comprehensive provisions dealing\n\n     with the service conditions of the police personnel, whereas\n\n     the Act of 2007 consists of general provisions in relation to\n\n     the deployment of the police force. The preamble of the Act\n\n     of 2007 makes it abundantly clear that it has been enacted\n\n     in order to provide impartial and efficient police service to\n\n     safeguard and in the interest of the society including\n\n     minorities and also to augment the police personnel to fulfill\n\n     the societal needs with professionalism and free from\n\n     extraneous influences.(26) In the opinion of thisCourt, the Actof 2007 is a citizen\n\n     centric Act, whereas Rules of 1989, promulgated in exercise\n\n     of powers underArticle 309of the Constitution of India, are\n\n     substantive provisions dealing with the service conditions of\n\n     the police personnel. Hence, so far as the issue or question\n\n     relating to service conditions of police personnel, including\n\n     their transfer is concerned, the provisions of Rules of 1989(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(11 of 21)                   [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n     alone are relevant. The provisions of the Act of 2007 cannot\n\n     be resorted to with respect to questions relating to transfer\n\n     or other service conditions. In case of a conflict, the general\n\n     law, i.e. the provisions of the Act of 2007 will have to yield to\n\n     the special laws, i.e., provisions of Rules of 1989.\n\n(27) Argument of Mr. Manish Vyas emanating fromSection 34of\n\n     the Act of 2007, is not tenable as the said section uses\n\n     expression "Deploy". In the opinion of this Court, the term\n\n     "Deploy"      has    an   altogether        different       connotation     and\n\n     purport. The expression "Deployment" means moving troops\n\n     or   forces     to    a    particular        location.       The     expression\n\n     "Deployment" is used when the entire force or large numbers\n\n     of police personnel are ordered to converge to a particular\n\n     location to deal with an unexpected situation or to meet with\n\n     immediate requirement. Deployment relates to a group of\n\n     police personnel; whereas transfer deals with posting of an\n\n     individual police personnel.(28) Learned    Additional       Advocate         General        relied   upon   the\n\n     judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case ofState\n\n     of Haryana Vs. Kashmir Singh(supra) as a trump card to\n\n     contend that a Constable/Head-Constable can be transferred\n\n     out of district and similarly an ASI can be transferred out of\n\n     range.(29) A careful reading of the judgment aforesaid, particularly Rule\n\n     12.26 noticed in para No.9 of the judgment, reveals that the\n\n     concerned Rules, namely, Punjab Police Rules, 1934, contain\n\n     a specific provision permitting inter-district transfer, subject\n\n     to approval of Superintendent concerned and inter-range(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(12 of 21)                     [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n     transfers, subject to approval of the Deputy Inspector\n\n     General concerned; whereas the Rules of 1989, which are\n\n     applicable in the case in hands, do not have any such\n\n     provision. Paras 11, 12 and 14 of the judgment, which have\n\n     been relied upon by Mr. Manish Vyas, cannot be read\n\n     divorced of the statutory provision applicable in the said case\n\n     which have been noticed in para No.9 of the judgment in the\n\n     case ofKashmir Singh(supra).(30) There being a significant difference between the statutory\n\n     provisions prevailing in the case ofKashmir Singh(supra)\n\n     and the statutory provisions governing the present petitions,\n\n     in the opinion of this Court, judgment of Hon'ble the\n\n     Supreme Court in the case ofState of Haryana Vs. Kashmir\n\n     Singh(supra) would hardly lend any support to the State.\n\n(31) The State has used the order/circular dated 10.08.2021,\n\n     issued    by    the    Additional         Director       General      of   Police,\n\n     Rajasthan, Jaipur, as a sheet anchor. The said order provides\n\n     that the seniority of the police personnel, who have been\n\n     transferred vide Orders Nos.2259, 2264 and 2265 dated\n\n     05.08.2021, shall be maintained in their previous district/\n\n     range.(32) This Court is of the firm view that in the face of substantive\n\n     provision, namely, Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989, which\n\n     provides that seniority of Constable and Head-Constable\n\n     shall    be    maintained       district-wise       and      the    seniority   of\n\n     Assistant Sub-Inspector will be maintained range-wise, no\n\n     administrative order much less order dated 10.08.2021,\n\n     issued by the Director General of Police, can protect or affect(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(13 of 21)                    [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n     their seniority. Petitioners' seniority cannot be maintained\n\n     de-hors Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989.(33) This Court has consistently held that inter-district transfers\n\n     of Constables and Head-Constables and inter-range transfers\n\n     of ASI's are contrary to Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989. It will\n\n     not be out of place to reproduce adjudication made by this\n\n     Court in the case of Smt. Premlata (supra), which reads\n\n     thus:-"A perusal of the said Rules shows that the persons\n        mentioned in column 5 of Sections I, II and IV of the\n        Schedule-I holding substantive rank shall be eligible in\n        the case of Constables on District/Unit, Battalion basis,\n        which means that the concerned Constable shall be\n        promoted as and when his/her turn comes in the\n        district to which he/she has been transferred.Mr. Jai Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Traffic,\n        Bikaner is present in the Court and confirms the said\n        fact. Thus, this Court fails to understand as to how the\n        petitioner does not stand to suffer, in case she is\n        transferred from Bikaner to Jhunjhunu because, even\n        though, the seniority is maintained from the date of\n        the appointment, she will be promoted only in case\n        the person senior to her in Jhunjhunu has been\n        promoted though his initial appointment is after the\n        date of the initial appointment of the present\n        petitioner. Thus, the transfer order which places the\n        petitioner in disadvantage vis-a-vis for the purpose of\n        promotion cannot be sustained."(34) Coordinate Benches of this Court have followed the aforesaid\n\n     view in the cases of Yadram (supra) and Harendra(supra).\n\n(35) As the appointing authority of Constable/Head-Constable is\n\n     the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned,\n\n     consequent    to   their     transfer       under         consideration,   the\n\n     Constables and Head-Constables will be required to receive\n\n     instructions/directions from the Superintendent of Police of\n\n     the district in which they have been transferred and as a(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(14 of 21)                  [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n     natural corollary of their transfer, their appointing authority,\n\n     so also the disciplinary authority will be changed.\n\n(36) Such action of the respondents cannot be countenanced as\n\n     the Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority of an\n\n     employee cannot be changed without his/her consent.\n\n(37) The transfers made vide order under challenge are, on the\n\n     one     hand,    contrary       to    the      statutory      provisions      and\n\n     judgments of this Court and on the other hand reflective of\n\n     non-application of mind.(38) This Court fails to comprehend that if any disciplinary action\n\n     is to be taken against a transferred Constable/Head-\n\n     Constable, then, who will be the competent authority to\n\n     initiate the enquiry? Subhash Chandra (petitioner in S.B.\n\n     Civil   Writ    Petition    No.10353/2021),              being    a   Constable\n\n     (General Duty), has been transferred from Jaisalmer to\n\n     G.R.P.,   Ajmer;      his     disciplinary        authority      prior   to   the\n\n     impugned transfer was Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer.\n\n     May be, as per the stand of the respondents, his seniority\n\n     will remain as per his seniority in Jaisalmer, but what would\n\n     happen if the persons junior to him posted in Jaisalmer are\n\n     promoted, whereas no promotional avenues are available in\n\n     G.R.P., Ajmer. Will he still be given promotion?\n\n(39) That apart, if due to any delinquency, a disciplinary action is\n\n     proposed to be taken against the said Constable (Subhash\n\n     Chandra), whether the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer\n\n     will be the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary\n\n     proceedings or the Superintendent of Police at Ajmer!(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(15 of 21)                     [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n\n\n(40) There are many more related or ancillary questions attached\n\n     with such transfer, such as; at which place the service record\n\n     of the transferred employees will be kept, who will deal with\n\n     leave applications etc. of the transferred Constable/Head-\n\n     Constables and A.S.Is? The Rules of 1989 are silent in this\n\n     regard.   The    hiatus,      if   any,      cannot         be    filled   by   the\n\n     administrative orders.(41) According to this Court, transfers affected by the impugned\n\n     order, shunting petitioners even out of range, would entail\n\n     more complications than serving the cause of administration;\n\n     let alone, the inconvenience caused to the petitioners.\n\n(42) During the course of submission, learned Additional Advocate\n\n     General apprised the Court that most of the petitioners are\n\n     facing cases of anti-corruption and hence, in the interest of\n\n     better administration, the respondent No.2 has decided to\n\n     transfer these employees out of their respective range, so\n\n     that they cannot influence the investigation.\n\n(43) This Court feels that the same cannot be a reason or ground\n\n     to transfer a Constable/Head-Constable or even an A.S.I. out\n\n     of his range. Such stand reflects State's lack of confidence in\n\n     the officers and investigating agencies.(44) As an outcome of the discussion foregoing, these writ\n\n     petitions deserve to be, and are hereby allowed. The\n\n     impugned    order       dated      05.08.2021,              qua   each     of   the\n\n     petitioners, whose names are mentioned in the schedule,\n\n     including that of Subhash Chandra, is quashed.(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(16 of 21)               [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n(45) The stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.(DINESH MEHTA),J\n\n /skm/-(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(17 of 21)                    [CW-10353/2021]\n\n\n\n                                                                          Schedule\n\nS.NO.    WRIT PETITION NO.                           PARTY NAME\n   1.    SBCWP NO.10349/2021     Jai Kishan Bishnoi             State of Raj. & Ors.\n   2.    SBCWP NO.10351/2021     Naveen Kumar Shoran            State of Raj. & Ors.\n   3.    SBCWP NO.10354/2021     Prakash                        State of Raj. & Ors.\n   4.    SBCWP NO.10363/2021     Ravindra Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors.\n   5.    SBCWP NO.10369/2021     Mohan Lal                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   6.    SBCWP NO.10372/2021     Shrawan Kumar                  State of Raj. & Ors.\n   7.    SBCWP NO.10374/2021     Mahipal                        State of Raj. & Ors.\n   8.    SBCWP NO.10375/2021     Hari Ram                       State of Raj. & Ors.\n   9.    SBCWP NO.10377/2021     Dinesh                         State of Raj. & Ors.\n   10.   SBCWP NO.10378/2021     Ramesh                         State of Raj. & Ors.\n   11.   SBCWP NO.10380/2021     Banwari Lal                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   12.   SBCWP NO.10382/2021     Kailash Dan                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   13.   SBCWP NO.10383/2021     Birma Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   14.   SBCWP NO.10384/2021     Jalam Singh                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   15.   SBCWP NO.10386/2021     Suresh Kumar                   State of Raj. & Ors.\n   16.   SBCWP NO.10387/2021     Lukman                         State of Raj. & Ors.\n   17.   SBCWP NO.10388/2021     Sharwan Kumar                  State of Raj. & Ors.\n   18.   SBCWP NO.10389/2021     Daya Sindhu                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   19.   SBCWP NO.10390/2021     Om Prakash                     State of Raj. & Ors.\n   20.   SBCWP NO.10391/2021     Sharwan Ram                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   21.   SBCWP NO.10393/2021     Ramswaroop                     State of Raj. & Ors.\n   22.   SBCWP NO.10394/2021     Bharmal                        State of Raj. & Ors.\n   23.   SBCWP NO.10395/2021     Mangi Lal                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   24.   SBCWP NO.10397/2021     Ram Kumar                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   25.   SBCWP NO.10399/2021     Rugha Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   26.   SBCWP NO.10401/2021     Mayaram Rawat                  State of Raj. & Ors.\n   27.   SBCWP NO.10402/2021     Narendra Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors.\n   28.   SBCWP NO.10403/2021     Bhagirath Ram                  State of Raj. & Ors.\n   29.   SBCWP NO.10404/2021     Deshraj Dewat                  State of Raj. & Ors.\n   30.   SBCWP NO.10405/2021     Indra Raj                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   31.   SBCWP NO.10407/2021     Banshilal                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   32.   SBCWP NO.10408/2021     Mahipal                        State of Raj. & Ors.\n   33.   SBCWP NO.10409/2021     Radhe Shyam                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   34.   SBCWP NO.10410/2021     Jora Ram                       State of Raj. & Ors.\n   35.   SBCWP NO.10411/2021     Hanuman Ram                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   36.   SBCWP NO.10413/2021     Jugta Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   37.   SBCWP NO.10415/2021     Shankar Lal                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   38.   SBCWP NO.10416/2021     Shivraj                        State of Raj. & Ors.\n   39.   SBCWP NO.10418/2021     Vikram Singh                   State of Raj. & Ors.\n   40.   SBCWP NO.10419/2021     Budha Ram Bishnoi              State of Raj. & Ors.\n   41.   SBCWP NO.10422/2021     Gumna Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n   42.   SBCWP NO.10423/2021     Karan Singh                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n   43.   SBCWP NO.10430/2021     Sukhdev Vishnoi                State of Raj. & Ors.\n   44.   SBCWP NO.10431/2021     Raju Ram Bishnoi               State of Raj. & Ors.\n   45.   SBCWP NO.10435/2021     Ramniwas                       State of Raj. & Ors.(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(18 of 21)                  [CW-10353/2021]\n\n46.   SBCWP NO.10460/2021     Hajari Lal                     State of Raj. & Ors.\n47.   SBCWP NO.10465/2021     Sujana Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors.\n48.   SBCWP NO.10468/2021     Khuman Singh                   State of Raj. & Ors.\n49.   SBCWP NO.10473/2021     Gopal Ram Bishnoi              State of Raj. & Ors.\n50.   SBCWP NO.10475/2021     Sharwan Kumar                  State of Raj. & Ors.\n51.   SBCWP NO.10476/2021     Jogendra                       State of Raj. & Ors.\n52.   SBCWP NO.10478/2021     Sunil                          State of Raj. & Ors.\n53.   SBCWP NO.10479/2021     Megha Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n54.   SBCWP NO.10481/2021     Dhala Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n55.   SBCWP NO.10483/2021     Raghunath                      State of Raj. & Ors.\n56.   SBCWP NO.10484/2021     Sharwan Ram                    State of Raj. & Ors.\n57.   SBCWP NO.10486/2021     Raghuveer Singh                State of Raj. & Ors.\n58.   SBCWP NO.10491/2021     Nemichand                      State of Raj. & Ors\n59.   SBCWP NO.10492/2021     Sanjay Choudhary               State of Raj. & Ors\n60.   SBCWP NO.10493/2021     Manoj Bishnoi                  State of Raj. & Ors\n61.   SBCWP NO.10494/2021     Purkha Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n62.   SBCWP NO.10496/2021     Om Prakash                     State of Raj. & Ors\n63.   SBCWP NO.10497/2021     Dhoora Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n64.   SBCWP NO.10498/2021     Hanumana Ram                   State of Raj. & Ors\n65.   SBCWP NO.10499/2021     Sunil Kumar                    State of Raj. & Ors\n66.   SBCWP NO.10500/2021     Sahja Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors\n67.   SBCWP NO.10501/2021     Roop Lal                       State of Raj. & Ors\n68.   SBCWP NO.10503/2021     Jhumar Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n69.   SBCWP NO.10504/2021     Ramesh Kumar                   State of Raj. & Ors\n70.   SBCWP NO.10505/2021     Sampat lal Jat                 State of Raj. & Ors\n71.   SBCWP NO.10507/2021     Raghunath Ram                  State of Raj. & Ors\n72.   SBCWP NO.10508/2021     Veeram Khan                    State of Raj. & Ors\n73.   SBCWP NO.10509/2021     Hetram Bishnoi                 State of Raj. & Ors\n74.   SBCWP NO.10510/2021     Joga Ram                       State of Raj. & Ors\n75.   SBCWP NO.10511/2021     Achala Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n76.   SBCWP NO.10512/2021     Poonamchand                    State of Raj. & Ors\n77.   SBCWP NO.10513/2021     Kanhaiya Lal                   State of Raj. & Ors\n78.   SBCWP NO.10514/2021     Manjeet Singh                  State of Raj. & Ors\n79.   SBCWP NO.10516/2021     Shesha Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n80.   SBCWP NO.10517/2021     Ramesh Kumar                   State of Raj. & Ors\n81.   SBCWP NO.10518/2021     Nirbhay Singh Shaktawat State of Raj. & Ors\n82.   SBCWP NO.10519/2021     Tane Singh                     State of Raj. & Ors\n83.   SBCWP NO.10520/2021     Mohan Lal                      State of Raj. & Ors\n84.   SBCWP NO.10521/2021     Chhota Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n85.   SBCWP NO.10522/2021     Raj Kumar Bishnoi              State of Raj. & Ors\n86.   SBCWP NO.10523/2021     Om Prakash                     State of Raj. & Ors\n87.   SBCWP NO.10524/2021     Puna Ram                       State of Raj. & Ors\n88.   SBCWP NO.10525/2021     Gani Mohammed                  State of Raj. & Ors\n89.   SBCWP NO.10527/2021     Ramniwas                       State of Raj. & Ors\n90.   SBCWP NO.10529/2021     Sonu                           State of Raj. & Ors\n91.   SBCWP NO.10530/2021     Mahendra Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors\n92.   SBCWP NO.10531/2021     Mukna Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors\n93.   SBCWP NO.10532/2021     Avinash                        State of Raj. & Ors\n94.   SBCWP NO.10533/2021     Suraj Bhan                     State of Raj. & Ors(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(19 of 21)                    [CW-10353/2021]\n\n 95.   SBCWP NO.10534/2021     Paras Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors\n 96.   SBCWP NO.10535/2021     Basti Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors\n 97.   SBCWP NO.10536/2021     Dharmendra Singh               State of Raj. & Ors\n 98.   SBCWP NO.10537/2021     Revnta Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n 99.   SBCWP NO.10538/2021     Kapil Barala                   State of Raj. & Ors\n100.   SBCWP NO.10539/2021     Surendra                       State of Raj. & Ors\n                               Khokhar(Kumar)\n101.   SBCWP NO.10540/2021     Bhinya Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n102.   SBCWP NO.10542/2021     Shivram                        State of Raj. & Ors\n103.   SBCWP NO.10543/2021     Ramesh Kumar                   State of Raj. & Ors\n104.   SBCWP NO.10544/2021     Dama Ram                       State of Raj. & Ors\n105.   SBCWP NO.10545/2021     Jayanti Lal                    State of Raj. & Ors\n106.   SBCWP NO.10546/2021     Kanhaiya Lal                   State of Raj. & Ors\n107.   SBCWP NO.10547/2021     Arjun Singh                    State of Raj. & Ors\n108.   SBCWP NO.10548/2021     Ramesh Kalla                   State of Raj. & Ors\n109.   SBCWP NO.10549/2021     Sandeep Kumar                  State of Raj. & Ors\n110.   SBCWP NO.10550/2021     Jaipal                         State of Raj. & Ors\n111.   SBCWP NO.10551/2021     Virendra Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors\n112.   SBCWP NO.10553/2021     Deepa Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors\n113.   SBCWP NO.10554/2021     Gumana Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n114.   SBCWP NO.10556/2021     Mahesha Ram                    State of Raj. & Ors\n115.   SBCWP NO.10557/2021     Shekhar Chandra                State of Raj. & Ors\n116.   SBCWP NO.10559/2021     Daulat Singh Mehriya           State of Raj. & Ors\n117.   SBCWP NO.10561/2021     Mahendra Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors\n118.   SBCWP NO.10563/2021     Ramesh Kumar                   State of Raj. & Ors\n119.   SBCWP NO.10565/2021     Shyamlal                       State of Raj. & Ors\n120.   SBCWP NO.10566/2021     Roshan Lal                     State of Raj. & Ors\n121.   SBCWP NO.10568/2021     Mohan Vishnoi                  State of Raj. & Ors\n122.   SBCWP NO.10570/2021     Anop Bishnoi                   State of Raj. & Ors\n123.   SBCWP NO.10572/2021     Bhagwan Dan                    State of Raj. & Ors\n124.   SBCWP NO.10574/2021     Khuman Singh                   State of Raj. & Ors\n125.   SBCWP NO.10575/2021     Mahendra                       State of Raj. & Ors\n126.   SBCWP NO.10577/2021     Mahaveer Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors\n127.   SBCWP NO.10578/2021     Bhoma Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors\n128.   SBCWP NO.10579/2021     Kuldeep Singh                  State of Raj. & Ors\n129.   SBCWP NO.10580/2021     Narayan Dan                    State of Raj. & Ors\n130.   SBCWP NO.10581/2021     Sunil Kumar                    State of Raj. & Ors\n131.   SBCWP NO.10582/2021     Farsa Ram                      State of Raj. & Ors\n132.   SBCWP NO.10583/2021     Manish Jakhar                  State of Raj. & Ors\n133.   SBCWP NO.10586/2021     Rakesh Kumar                   State of Raj. & Ors\n134.   SBCWP NO.10587/2021     Narpat Singh                   State of Raj. & Ors\n135.   SBCWP NO.10588/2021     Mahendra Ghatiyala             State of Raj. & Ors\n136.   SBCWP NO.10589/2021     Raju Ram                       State of Raj. & Ors\n137.   SBCWP NO.10619/2021     Manphool                       State of Raj. & Ors\n138.   SBCWP NO.10624/2021     Rajendra Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors\n139.   SBCWP NO.10638/2021     Bhag Chand Choudhary           State of Raj. & Ors\n140.   SBCWP NO.10641/2021     Madan Lal                      State of Raj. & Ors\n141.   SBCWP NO.10643/2021     Pradeep Kumar                  State of Raj. & Ors\n142.   SBCWP NO.10644/2021     Shishupal Singh Rajawat        State of Raj. & Ors(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(20 of 21)                    [CW-10353/2021]\n\n143.   SBCWP NO.10646/2021     Mali Ram Jat                   State of Raj. & Ors\n144.   SBCWP NO.10647/2021     Lalit Singh Chouhan            State of Raj. & Ors\n145.   SBCWP NO.10648/2021     Mukesh                         State of Raj. & Ors\n146.   SBCWP NO.10652/2021     Ummeda Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n147.   SBCWP NO.10656/2021     Harlal Salvi                   State of Raj. & Ors\n148.   SBCWP NO.10686/2021     Dharmendra Kumar               State of Raj. & Ors\n149.   SBCWP NO.10688/2021     Hitendra Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors\n150.   SBCWP NO.10696/2021     Ramesh Chandra                 State of Raj. & Ors\n151.   SBCWP NO.10729/2021     Sharwan Kumar                  State of Raj. & Ors\n152.   SBCWP NO.10733/2021     Prakash Chandra                State of Raj. & Ors\n153.   SBCWP NO.10736/2021     Hirendra Kumar                 State of Raj. & Ors\n154.   SBCWP NO.10738/2021     Vikram Singh                   State of Raj. & Ors\n155.   SBCWP NO.10774/2021     Ramprasad Bhand                State of Raj. & Ors\n156.   SBCWP NO.10796/2021     Vishna Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n157.   SBCWP NO.10803/2021     Ashok Kumar                    State of Raj. & Ors\n158.   SBCWP NO.10805/2021     Santram Meena                  State of Raj. & Ors\n159.   SBCWP NO.10808/2021     Sunil Vishnoi                  State of Raj. & Ors\n160.   SBCWP NO.10815/2021     Priyank Kumar Meena            State of Raj. & Ors\n161.   SBCWP NO.10829/2021     Bhakar Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n162.   SBCWP NO.10844/2021     Niranjan Kumar                 State of Raj. & Ors\n163.   SBCWP NO.10849/2021     Dinesh Kumar Bishnoi           State of Raj. & Ors\n164.   SBCWP NO.10853/2021     Dilip Bishnoi                  State of Raj. & Ors\n165.   SBCWP NO.10855/2021     Dhularam                       State of Raj. & Ors\n166.   SBCWP NO.10901/2021     Paramveer                      State of Raj. & Ors\n167.   SBCWP NO.10932/2021     Mahesh Parashar                State of Raj. & Ors\n168.   SBCWP NO.10941/2021     Krishna Kumar                  State of Raj. & Ors\n169.   SBCWP NO.10947/2021     Devendra Kumar Sharma State of Raj. & Ors\n170.   SBCWP NO.10950/2021     Karan Singh                    State of Raj. & Ors\n171.   SBCWP NO.10957/2021     Uttam Singh                    State of Raj. & Ors\n172.   SBCWP NO.10959/2021     Mahipal Singh                  State of Raj. & Ors\n173.   SBCWP NO.10960/2021     Jai Singh                      State of Raj. & Ors\n174.   SBCWP NO.10964/2021     Rakesh Singh                   State of Raj. & Ors\n175.   SBCWP NO.11027/2021     Satyendra Kumar                State of Raj. & Ors\n176.   SBCWP NO.11029/2021     Sunil Vishnoi                  State of Raj. & Ors\n177.   SBCWP NO.11033/2021     Sunder Singh Dogiwal           State of Raj. & Ors\n178.   SBCWP NO.11035/2021     Jalil Ahamed Sheikh            State of Raj. & Ors\n179.   SBCWP NO.11037/2021     Pratap Ram Bishnoi             State of Raj. & Ors\n180.   SBCWP NO.11038/2021     Meva Ram                       State of Raj. & Ors\n181.   SBCWP NO.11040/2021     Satish                         State of Raj. & Ors\n182.   SBCWP NO.11137/2021     Dinesh Kumar                   State of Raj. & Ors\n183.   SBCWP NO.11142/2021     Omaram Dangi                   State of Raj. & Ors\n184.   SBCWP NO.11143/2021     Gopal Singh Rathore            State of Raj. & Ors\n185.   SBCWP NO.11154/2021     Harish Kumar                   State of Raj. & Ors\n186.   SBCWP NO.11172/2021     Ramniwas Vishnoi               State of Raj. & Ors\n187.   SBCWP NO.11223/2021     Ompal                          State of Raj. & Ors\n188.   SBCWP NO.11227/2021     Teja Ram                       State of Raj. & Ors\n189.   SBCWP NO.11256/2021     Ram Kunwar                     State of Raj. & Ors\n190.   SBCWP NO.11257/2021     Ummed Singh                    State of Raj. & Ors\n191.   SBCWP NO.11263/2021     Laxmi Narayan                  State of Raj. & Ors(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)(21 of 21)                    [CW-10353/2021]\n\n                                   192.   SBCWP NO.11265/2021     Likhma Ram                     State of Raj. & Ors\n                                   193.   SBCWP NO.11295/2021     Durgadatt                      State of Raj. & Ors\n                                   194.   SBCWP NO.11220/2021     Doulat Ram Meena               State of Raj. & Ors\n                                   195.   SBCWP NO.11328/2021     Mahendra Singh                 State of Raj. & Ors\n                                                                  Shekhawat(Downloaded on 03/09/2021 at 09:17:37 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)