WP/38495/2013 of Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Vs KoIli Raghuram Reddy, IPS, on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri RSR, J.)

1 Respondents 2 and 3 in O.A.No.1290 of 2013 filedbefore the Central Administrative Tribunal, HyderabadBench, Hyderabad, have filed this Writ Petition questioningthe validity of the interim order, dated 27.11.2013 passed inM.A.No.957 of 2013 in the said O.A.

2 The first respondent / applicant is an IPS officer of2006 batch. Earlier, he worked as Superintendent of Policein Prakasam District from October 2011 to 03.07.2013 andfrom 04.07.2013 onwards he worked as Superintendent ofPolice, Kurnool for a period of 3 ½ months. By orders of theGovernment, issued in G.O.Rt.No.4658, GeneralAdministration (SC.C) Department, dated 27.10.2013, hewas transferred from Kurnool to Hyderabad as DeputyCommissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad. The firstrespondent challenged the said order of transfer before theTribunal on the ground that he was transferred only after 3½ months of service at Kurnool, without any valid reasonand in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble ApexCourt in Prakash Singh and Others Vs.Union of India and Others[[1]].

3 At the stage of admission, the Tribunal passed an ad- interim order, suspending the order of the Government,dated 27.10.2013 and on filing of vacate petition by thepetitioners herein, made the said ad-interim order absolute. The main O.A is still pending consideration before theTribunal.

4 The learned Additional Advocate General, appearingfor the petitioners, contended that the Tribunal suspendedthe order of transfer without assigning any valid reasons. Itis further contended that having regard to the orders passedby the Government, it cannot be said that the same is not inconformity with the guidelines issued by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Prakash Singh Case (supra).

5 Heard Sri D. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearingfor the first respondent / applicant.

6 Having heard the learned counsel appearing on eitherside, we have also carefully gone through the detailed andreasoned interim order passed by the Tribunal.

7 It is not in dispute that after his transfer from earlierplace, the first respondent was posted at Kurnool and heworked there for only 3 ½ months. Although it is his specific case that the order oftransfer is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Prakash Singh case (supra), the reasonassigned by the petitioners in the counter affidavit filed bythem before the Tribunal is that the transfer was effectedonly for the purpose of Cadre Management and for giving exposure to young officers by posting at different places. InPrakash Singh case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court hadissued various guidelines. The relevant guideline, for thepurpose of disposal of the Writ Petition, is extractedhereunder:

“Minimum tenure of IG of Police and other officers:

(3) Police officers on operational dutiesin the field like the Inspector General of Policein-charge Zone, Deputy Inspector General ofPolice in-charge Range, Superintendent ofPolice in-charge District and Station HouseOfficer, in-charge of a Police Station shall alsohave a prescribed minimum tenure of two yearsunless it is found necessary to remove themprematurely following disciplinary proceedingsagainst them of their conviction in a criminaloffence or in a case of corruption or if theincumbent is otherwise incapacitated fromdischarging his responsibilities. This would besubject to promotion and retirement of theofficer.”

8 Although it is contended by the learned AdditionalAdvocate General that the transfer was effected basing onthe recommendations of the Police Establishment Board,but on closer examination of the guidelines issued by theHon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the prima facie view thatsuch transfer order is passed in violation of the guidelineNo.3, which was extracted above, where the Hon’bleSupreme Court has prescribed minimum tenure forInspector General of Police and other officers. In the saidguideline, so far as the Superintendents of Police of Districtsare concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to allow a minimum period of two years unless it is found necessaryto remove them prematurely following disciplinaryproceedings against them or their conviction in criminalcases or in case of corruption etc. The reason assigned bythe petitioners in the counter does not fit into the guidelineissued, so as to disturb the 1[st] respondent / applicant onlyafter 3 ½ months of his posting at Kurnool. In any event, asit is not in dispute that the first respondent / applicant isbeing continued at Kurnool and the impugned order is onlyan interim order and inasmuch as the main O.A is stillpending consideration before the Tribunal, we are of theview that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugnedorder at this stage, by this Court.

9 For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoidof merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, we request the Tribunal to dispose ofO.A.No.1290 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible.

10 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, ifany, shall stand closed.

_______________________

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

Date: 30.12.2013Kvsn*

___________________________

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J.

[1]2006 (8) SCC 1