• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

IN THE MAHARASHTRA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.806 OF 2019 DISTRICT : PUNE Shri Sachin Dilip Bari. ) Age : 38 Yrs., Occu.: Sub-Divisional ) Police Officer, Daund, District : Pune and ) Residing at Flat No.302, Prathamesh ) Building, 'A' Wing, Dev Palm Society, ) Gopalwadi, Daund, District : Pune. )...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra. Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Director General of Police. ) Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Colaba, ) Mumbai. ) 3. Smt. Aishwarya Sharma. ) Dy. Superintendent of Police, ) C/o. Superintendent of Police, ) Solapur Rural, Solapur, Collector ) Compound, Sidheshwar Peth, ) District : Solapur. )...Respondents Mr. A.V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. K.S. Gaikwad, Presenting Officer for Respondents. CORAM A.P. KURHEKAR, MEMBER-J DATE : 03.'X.2019 2 0.A.806/2019 JUDGMENT 1. The Applicant has challenged the impugned transfer order dated 14.08.2019 whereby he is transferred from the post of Sub Division Police Officer (SDPO), Daund, Pune (Rural) to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) in the Office of Director General of Police (DGP), State of Maharashtra, Mumbai invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. In nutshell, the facts giving rise to this application are as under:- The Applicant is serving in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of police (DY.S.P.) and by order dated 01.01.2019, he was posted as Sub Division Police Officer (SDPO), Daund, Pune (Rural). He had hardly completed eight months as SDPO, Daund and abruptly, by impugned order dated 14.08.2019, he was transferred on the post of Dy.S.P. in the Office of DGP, State of Maharashtra. The Applicant has challenged the impugned transfer order contending that it is mid-term and mid-tenure transfer in contravention of provisions of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Police Act 1951' for brevity). In the impugned transfer order, he shown transferred on the recommendation of Police Establishment Board-1 (PEB) under Section 22N of 'Police Act 1951'. He contends that no case is made out to transfer him under Section 22N or 22N(2) of `Police Act 1951'. By impugned transfer order, in his place, the Respondent No.3 is posted. He, therefore, contends that the transfer order is ex facie illegal and liable to be set aside and prayed to set aside the impugned transfer order dated 14th August, 2019. 3. The Respondent No.1 resisted the application by filing Affidavit- in-reply inter-alia denying that the impugned transfer order suffers 3 O.A.806/2019 from any illegality. The Respondents sought to justify the transfer order contending that the Superintendent of Police (S.P.), Pune (Rural) had submitted the default report dated 01.08.2019 which was received in the Office of DGP on 02.08.2019 about serious misconduct and negligence on the part of Applicant in the matter of investigation of Crime No.720/2018 registered under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The S.P, Pune (Rural) recommended for transfer of the Applicant from his present post. The report was placed in the meeting of PEB held on 06.08.2019 and in view of default report, the PEB unanimously resolved to invoke the provisions of Section 22N(2) of 'Police Act 1951' and to transfer the Applicant on administrative ground and in public interest. The Competent Authority namely Hon'ble Chief Minister approved the recommendation of PEB and accordingly, the Applicant was transferred to Mumbai. As such, the Respondent sought to justify the transfer order contending that it was necessitated in view of serious default report received against the Applicant. 4. When the matter was taken up for admission for considering the prayer of interim relief, the learned P.O. has filed Affidavit of Shri Kulwant Kumar Sarangal, Additional Director General of Police (Establishment) in the Office of DGP, who happens to be Member Secretary of PEB. This Affidavit was pressed into service at the time of hearing on interim relief to show that the default report was the basis for transfer of the Applicant though the reason is not forthcoming or mentioned in PEB minutes. In Affidavit, he stated that the default report was placed before the PEB and considering serious default on the part of Applicant, the PEB resolved to transfer the Applicant. In view of Affidavit filed by Member Secretary of PEB, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to expedite the matter and to decide the same on merit. Accordingly, the matter has been expedited for decision on merit. 4 0.A.806/2019 5. Shri A.V. Bandiwadekar, learned Advocate for the Applicant has pointed out that there is absolutely no whisper or any reference of alleged default report in the minutes of PEB which are at Page 101 of Paper Book, and therefore, the story developed by the Respondents that the transfer was made on default report is after-thought and an attempt is being made to supplement the reasons contrary to the minutes of PEB. He has further pointed out that, as per minutes of PEB, the transfer of 31 Officials including the Applicant were recommended in view of the instructions issued by Election Commission of India and the Applicant's case admittedly, does not fall within the parameters or instructions given by Election Commission of India in letter dated 11.07.2019. He, therefore, urged that the impugned transfer order is ex-facie unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, Smt. K.S. Gaikwad, learned Presenting Officer submits that, in fact, the transfer of the Applicant was on the basis of default report received from S.P, Daund, Pune (Rural). She sought to contend that the default report was very much before the PEB and having regard to the serious misconduct of the Applicant relating to crime u/s 302 of IPC the transfer was necessitated. To bolster up her contention, she placed reliance on the Affidavit of Shri Kulwant Kumar Sarangal, Member Secretary of PEB-1. Thus, according to her, even if there is no reference of alleged default report in PEB minutes, in view of Affidavit filed by Shri Sarangal stating that default report was placed before the PEB, the impugned transfer cannot be faulted with, as the PEB being Competent Authority unanimously recommended for the transfer. In this behalf she sought to place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.14200/2016 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Siddharth Kasbe) decided on 20.01.2017. She further pointed out that the recommendation of PEB was later approved by the Hon'ble Chief 5 0.A.806/2019 Minister. On this line of submission, she prayed to dismiss the O.A . 7. Admittedly, the Applicant had joined as SDPO, Daund on 01.01.2019 and had not completed normal tenure of two years as contemplated under the provisions of 'Police Act 1951'. As such. there is no denying that it is mid-term and mid-tenure transfer Undoubtedly, the PEB can make mid-term transfer in public interest and on account of administrative exigency as contemplated under Section 22N(2) of 'Police Act 1951'. 8. In view of the submissions advanced at the Bar, the crux of the matter is whether the PEB had recommended the transfer of the Applicant on default report, so as to qualify the same in public interest and on account of administrative exigency, as contemplated under Section 22N(2) of 'Police Act 1951'. 9. Before proceeding ahead, at this juncture, it would be apposite to see the minutes of PEB-1, which are at Page No.101 of P.B. which are very crucial in the facts of the present case, which are as follows :- "Confidential Following transfers of officers and modifications in the Government order No. RPS-1719/ P.K.144/ Pol-I(A), Home Dept., Govt Of Maharashtra dated 11.07.2019 and Govt. Order No. RPS- 0118/P.K.238(1)/Pol-1(A), Home Dept., Govt. Of Maharashtra, dated 29.07.2019, are recommended by PEB-I for consideration of the competent authority. Recommendations also include names of officers who are required to be transferred to give effect to direction contained in Clause 3(iv) of the CEC issued vide its Letter No 437/6/1/INSP/ECl/FUNCT/MCC/2019, dated 11.07.2019, that any officer who is due to retire within the coming six months, shall not be associated with any election related duty. To comply with the aforementioned direction of the CEC, some of the officers have been recommended for transfers who have not yet completed their effective tenure in their present assignments so that they could replace the said officers to conduct the Assembly Elections peacefully. 0.A.806/2019 Sr. Name of the Officer Present Posting Recommendation No. of PEB-1 2. Sachin Bari SDPO Daund, Dy.S.P, D.G. Pune Rural Office, M.S, Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/ Scl/ Sd/- Sd/ (Kulwant K. (P.B. Singh) (Sanjay Barve) (S.K. Jaiswal) (Sanjay Kumar) Sarangal) Addl. Director Director General Commissioner of Director General of Addl. Chief Secretary General of Police of Police Police, Mumbai City Police, Maharashtra (Home), Maharashtra (Estt) Maharashtra Anti Corruption Member State, Mumbai. State State, Mumbai Bureau, M.S., Member Chairman Member Secretary Mumbai. Member 10. In view of the aforesaid minutes, 31 Police Personnel including the Applicant were transferred. The name of Applicant is at Serial No.2 in the above Chart. It is explicit from the minutes of PEB that the meeting of PEB was conveyed only for the transfers of Police Personnel falling with the parameters laid down by Election Commission of India in letter dated 11.07.2019.

Load more

  12

Copy Link