Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dattatraya R. Karale, a Special Inspector General of Police in the Indian Police Service, was posted at Nashik Range. By an order dated 12th February 2024, he was transferred to the post of Special Inspector General of Police, Motor Transport, Pune. The petitioner challenged this transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which dismissed his original application on 20th February 2024. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner alleged that the transfer was malafide, politically motivated, and in violation of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, particularly Rule 6(1), and the transfer policy which prescribed a minimum tenure. He also contended that he was not given a hearing before the transfer. The respondents, including the Union of India, State of Maharashtra, and the transferred officer Shekhar Balasaheb Genbhau, defended the transfer as being in public interest and within the cadre. The court, after hearing the parties, held that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless malafides are clearly established or statutory rules are violated. The petitioner failed to prove malafides or any violation of Rule 6(1) as the transfer was within the same cadre and in public interest. The transfer policy guidelines are not statutory and do not confer any enforceable right. The transfer order was not punitive, and principles of natural justice are not attracted. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the transfer order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Malafides - Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, Rule 6(1) - The petitioner challenged his transfer from Nashik to Pune alleging malafides and violation of cadre rules. The court held that transfer is an incident of service and courts should not interfere unless malafides are clearly established or statutory rules violated. The petitioner failed to prove malafides or any violation of Rule 6(1) as the transfer was within the same cadre and in public interest. (Paras 1-20) B) Service Law - Transfer Policy - Guidelines - The petitioner argued that the transfer was contrary to the transfer policy which required minimum tenure. The court held that transfer policy guidelines are not statutory and do not confer any enforceable right. The transfer was made in public interest and the policy does not bar transfers before completion of tenure. (Paras 10-15) C) Service Law - Natural Justice - Transfer - The petitioner contended that he was not heard before the transfer order. The court held that transfer is an administrative decision and principles of natural justice are not attracted unless the order is punitive or stigmatic. The transfer order was not punitive. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Nashik to Pune was malafide, in violation of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, and contrary to the transfer policy, and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the original application.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of transfer dated 12th February 2024 and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20th February 2024 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- Courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless malafide or in violation of statutory rules
- Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules
- 1954
- Rule 6(1) of IPS (Cadre) Rules
- Doctrine of pleasure under Article 310 of the Constitution of India
- Transfer policy guidelines
- Public interest in transfers
