|
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside the transfer order of Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Anil Kumar, ruling that his premature transfer violated provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 and was issued without following the proper legal procedure.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, delivering the judgment on July 8 in CWP No. 105 of 2025, held that Anil Kumar's transfer from Baijnath to the Police Training College in Daroh was neither recommended by the Police Establishment Committee nor were valid reasons recorded in writing as mandated under Sections 12 and 56 of the Act. "There is no indication in the official record that the Police Establishment Committee, headed by the Director General of Police, recommended the petitioner's transfer. Hence, the administrative ground claimed by the state lacks legal basis," the court stated in its strongly-worded 19-page judgment. The court was hearing a petition filed by SDPO Anil Kumar, who had alleged that his transfer was politically motivated and done at the behest of a local MLA, after he took action against the legislator's son. The state, however, denied any political interference and said the move was made on administrative grounds. Though the court did not conclusively find political interference, it underlined that none of the conditions outlined in Section 12 of the Police Act, such as disciplinary action, criminal charges, or public interest exigency, were fulfilled in the petitioner's case. "Even if the transfer is assumed to be on administrative grounds, the state failed to explain how such grounds could override statutory procedure in the absence of any recommendation from the Police Establishment Committee," the judgment noted. The court also invoked the landmark Prakash Singh vs Union of India (2006) judgment, in which the Supreme Court directed state governments to ensure a minimum two-year tenure for police officers and insulate police transfers from arbitrary political influence. "Transfers and postings of police officers must be governed by institutional mechanisms like the State Police Establishment Board and cannot be left to the whims of individuals," the court said, quoting the apex court's guidelines. The High Court also dismissed arguments by the opposing counsel that the petitioner had concealed facts or misled the court. "The record shows the petitioner did inform the court that the private respondent had joined the post at Baijnath. There is no attempt to misstate or hide facts," the judge clarified. Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the government's transfer order dated December 24, 2024, and restored Anil Kumar's posting as SDPO Baijnath. The interim stay order passed on January 3, 2025, was vacated as the main petition stood decided. This ruling is being seen as a significant assertion of judicial oversight in upholding police autonomy and service safeguards against politically influenced transfers. The state government has not yet indicated whether it plans to appeal the decision. (ANI)
|
