Rajesh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police/Fire Service and ors.

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi vs Deputy Inspector General of Police/Fire Service and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 11, 2004

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/490327

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/490327
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Nov 11, 2004
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37121 of 2002
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 323 and 364; Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations - Regulation 497

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Kumar Tripathi

Advocate B.P. Yadav, Adv.

Respondent

Deputy Inspector General of Police/Fire Service and ors.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 323 and 364; Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations - Regulation 497
Reported In: (2005)1UPLBEC611

Excerpt

.....require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - ' 5. a perusal of regulation 497 clearly shows that there is no bar of transferring a police constable during the suspension period. ' this also is a strong indication that police officer under suspension can be transferred and he has to keep the authorities informed about his movements. the criminal casemay remain pending for years in the courts and it would certainly set a bad precedent to let a government servant remain static in one place on this ground for years together......prepare their defence. the same orders apply in the case of sub-inspectors under suspension provided there is suitable accommodation for them in the lines.if police officer who is placed under suspension is required to live in the police lines, the order of suspension must contain instruction to this effect. these orders do not apply in the case of a police officer who is released on bail by a court of law and placed under suspension, but the superintendent of police may order such an officer' to keep him informed of his movements.'5. a perusal of regulation 497 clearly shows that there is no bar of transferring a police constable during the suspension period. it only provides that such police official may be required to live in the police lines and shall not be subject to stricker restraint than officers of their own rank. if other officers of the same rank in the police lines on duty can be transferred, so can be the petitioner as under the regulation he is not subject to 'stricker restraint'. furthermore regulation 497 does not apply to the case of the petitioner as it itself provides that the regulation would not apply to police officer who is on bail. admittedly, the petitioner was on bail as such he even otherwise cannot take benefit of this regulation even if it was attracted in his case. the regulation further provides that 'such an officer has to keep the superintendent of police informed about his movements.' this also is a strong indication that police officer under suspension can be transferred and he has to keep the authorities informed about his movements. the services of the petitioner are transferable and he cannot remain posted at varanasi merely because a criminal case is pending against him. pendency of criminal case is an irrelevant 'consideration for the purposes of transfer of a government servant. the criminal casemay remain pending for years in the courts and it would certainly set a bad precedent to let a government servant remain static.....

Full Judgment

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

1. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 5.3.1991. While he was working as Fire Man in the Fire Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi, he is alleged to have been implicated in a criminal, case under Sections 364/323 -IPC in pursuance of the FIR lodged by one Smt. Asha Srivastava wife of Sri Ashutosh Kumar Verma in respect of an incident on 9.2.1999. The petitioner was arrested by the Police and released on bail on 20.2.99. Thereafter he was suspended vide Order dated 12.2.99 passed by respondent No. 2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi. The petitioner moved an application before respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the Order of suspension since criminal case No. 47 of. 1999 was pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth, Varanasi against him which may take long time for disposal.

3. The petitioner was thereafter transferred vide. Order dated 14.6.2002 passed ' by respondent No. 2 from Varanasi to Aligarh. He moved an application dated 20.7.2002 praying that he may not be transferred during the pendency of criminal case against him in Sessions' Court, Varanasi.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Regulation 497 of the U.P. Police Regulations and submits that a police constable cannot be transferred during the suspension period. Regulation 497 is an under:

'497. Head Constables and Constables under suspension may be required by the Superintendent of Police to live in lines but should not be subject to stricter restraint than officers of their own rank who are in the lines on duty. They should be allowed to leave the lines to consult their legal advisers or to prepare their defence. The same Orders apply in the case of Sub-Inspectors under suspension provided there is suitable accommodation for them in the lines.

If police officer who is placed under suspension is required to live in the Police Lines, the Order of suspension must contain instruction to this effect.

These Orders do not apply in the case of a police officer who is released on bail by a Court of Law and placed under suspension, but the Superintendent of Police may Order such an officer' to keep him informed of his movements.'

5. A perusal of Regulation 497 clearly shows that there is no bar of transferring a police constable during the suspension period. It only provides that such police official may be required to live in the Police Lines and shall not be subject to stricker restraint than officers of their own rank. If other officers of the same rank in the Police Lines on duty can be transferred, so can be the petitioner as under the regulation he is not subject to 'stricker restraint'. Furthermore Regulation 497 does not apply to the case of the petitioner as it itself provides that the regulation would not apply to police officer who is on bail. Admittedly, the petitioner was on bail as such he even otherwise cannot take benefit of this regulation even if it was attracted in his case. The Regulation further provides that 'such an officer has to keep the Superintendent of Police informed about his movements.' This also is a strong indication that police officer under suspension can be transferred and he has to keep the authorities informed about his movements. The services of the petitioner are transferable and he cannot remain posted at Varanasi merely because a criminal case is pending against him. Pendency of criminal case is an irrelevant 'consideration for the purposes of transfer of a Government servant. The criminal casemay remain pending for years in the Courts and it would certainly set a bad precedent to let a Government servant remain static in one place on this ground for years together. The regulation further provides that these Orders do not apply in the case of a police officer who is released on bail by a Court of Law and placed under suspension, but the Superintendent of Police may Order such an officer to keep him informed of his movements.

6. For the above reasons the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that a suspended police constable can not be transferred has no force.

7. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2004 Same Parties Rajesh Kumar Tripathi vs Deputy Inspector General of Police/F... Same Subject Service Same Judge Rakesh Tiwari, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 323 and 364; Uttar Pradesh...

Service