High Court of Madhya Pradesh: The petitioner prayed against his transfer order from one place to another on the ground that in light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 1, a transfer policy has been framed by the State Government regarding the Police Officers in the year 2015-16 whereby minimum two years tenure has been fixed for the police officers unless it is found necessary to remove him prematurely whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner had not completed his two years of service at one place.
The petitioner had further alleged that the impugned order has been passed without constituting the Police Establishment Board and without recommendation of Police Establishment Board. On the other hand, the respondents refused to agree with the petitioner’s version of facts and proved that the petitioner had remained at the previously posted place for more than 2 years and the impugned order was made to cope up for an administrative exigency which could not be interfered with by the Court.
The Bench of Vandana Karsekar, J. on hearing both the parties observed that as held in the case of R. S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P., ILR 2007 MP 1329, transfer is a normal incident of service and same cannot be interfered by this Court in absence of any statutory Rules or mala fide. It ruled that in the present case, there was no as such violation of statutory rules and also, no mala fide has been proved by the petitioner on respondent’s part. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the writ petition. [D. N. Raj v. State of M.P., 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1320, decided on 16.11.2017]
