Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a common order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated August 9, 2019, by which the Tribunal set aside transfer orders of twelve police constables posted at the Social Security Cell of the Crime Branch, Police Commissionerate, Pune. The State of Maharashtra challenged this order before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a batch of writ petitions. The original applicants before the Tribunal, respondents in the writ petitions, were police constables who had been transferred by an order dated May 31, 2019 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, to various police stations within a radius of fifteen kilometres. They contended that they had not completed the normal tenure of five years at the Crime Branch, that the transfers were mid-term transfers under Section 2(6B) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and that the transfers had been made without satisfying the requirements of Section 22N(2), namely exceptional cases, public interest and administrative exigencies. They also raised a subsidiary contention that the Police Establishment Board was not validly constituted. The Tribunal accepted the primary contention and set aside the transfers, directing reinstatement within two weeks; it did not decide the Board constitution issue because it was not argued. The Tribunal also assigned an additional reason based on documents tendered across the bar, the contents of which were not disputed due to a misconception of facts. The original applicants had reported to the transferred posts but could not secure the benefit of the Tribunal's order because the High Court granted ad-interim relief on September 11, 2019 staying the Tribunal's order, and that stay continued. Before the High Court, the State relied on the minutes of the Police Establishment Board meeting dated May 31, 2019, which recorded that the constables had very good or outstanding service records and that their experience with informers would be useful at police station level for protecting weaker sections and maintaining public order, and that the decision was taken unanimously in public interest and on account of administrative exigency under Section 22(N)(1). The State argued that sufficient justification existed and that the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by substituting its opinion for the Board's opinion. The original applicants argued that the transfer orders lacked special reasons and did not satisfy Section 22N(2). The High Court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, including the definitions of General Transfer and Mid-term Transfer and the normal tenure provisions, and also referred to the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. The court noted that transfer is an incident of public service and does not require employee consent, and that the legality of transfer orders must be tested against the statutory requirements. The available excerpt ended before the final decision, so the operative outcome is not known from the text provided. The court was engaged in determining whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted and applied Section 22N and whether the Board's minutes satisfied the requirement of public interest and administrative exigency.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Transfer - Normal Tenure and Mid-term Transfer - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Sections 2(6A), 2(6B), 22N - The original applicants were police constables transferred before completing five-year normal tenure at the Crime Branch, which constituted mid-term transfer under Section 2(6B) and required compliance with Section 22N(2) - The Tribunal held the transfers were in contravention of Section 22N because the jurisdictional facts for mid-term transfer were absent, thus void ab initio - Held that mid-term transfer cannot be ordered without satisfying exceptional cases, public interest and administrative exigencies (Paras 1-7). B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Transfer Orders - Substitution of Opinion - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, Section 22N - The State relied on Police Establishment Board minutes dated May 31, 2019 to show public interest and administrative exigency, arguing the Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by substituting its opinion for the Board's - The High Court considered whether the Board's reasons constituted sufficient justification under Section 22N(2) - Held that reviewing courts must examine legality and not act as appellate authority over administrative decisions on transfer (Paras 8-10). C) Service Law - Constitution of Police Establishment Board - Validity of Recommendations - Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 - Original applicants raised a subsidiary contention that the Police Establishment Board was not validly constituted, but this point was not argued before the Tribunal and hence was not decided - The High Court noted that the Tribunal did not pronounce on this issue - Held that the constitution issue remained open and was not adjudicated (Para 3). D) Procedural Law - Interim Relief - Stay of Tribunal's Order - Not mentioned - The original applicants reported to transferred posts but could not get benefit of Tribunal order due to ad-interim relief granted by High Court on September 11, 2019 - The stay continued, preventing reinstatement - Held that interim order remained in operation (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer orders dated May 31, 2019 were mid-term transfers that violated Section 22N of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 because the original applicants had not completed five-year normal tenure and the conditions of exceptional cases, public interest and administrative exigencies were not satisfied; whether the Police Establishment Board was validly constituted; whether the Tribunal erred in substituting its opinion for that of the Board.
Law Points
- Police personnel have normal tenure of five years at one place of posting
- general transfer occurs in April and May after completion of normal tenure
- mid-term transfer means transfer other than general transfer
- mid-term transfer permissible only in exceptional cases in public interest and on account of administrative exigencies
- transfer is an incident of public service not requiring employee consent
- reviewing court does not substitute its opinion for administrative authority's decision on transfer
