Police Officer Cannot Be Transferred Without Recommendation By Police Establishment Board: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that Police Officer can be transferred by the competent authority if such recommendation is not made by the Police Establishment Board.

A writ petition was filed by the Petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, challenging the transfer order on the ground that it was issued in violation of the transfer policy.

The Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed, “Most importantly, in aforesaid judgment, it has been held that in order to ensure that the Officers/Officials working in the Police Establishment are not subjected to illegal, arbitrary or undue frequent transfers and the transfers of the Officers/Officials are not left to the discretion of an individual, the Act itself provides for adequate safeguards by providing for establishment of a State Police Establishment Committee, headed by the Director General of Police, which besides discharging other functions, has been made responsible for recommending proposals for transfers and postings of the Gazetted Officers to the State Government. There cannot be any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law, rather, this Court is of the view that till the time recommendation is not made by Police Establishment Board, which in the present case is missing, no Police Officer can be transferred by the competent authority.”

Senior Advocate Ajay Sharma represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Rajan Kahol and Jagdish Thakur represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The Petitioner contended that his transfer has been effected on the basis of political interference. It was submitted that since the Petitioner order to issue challan against the son of MLA of the area concerned, the competent authority passed a transfer order on the recommendation of the said MLA.

Further, the Petitioner submitted that as per Section 43 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 (the Act of 2012), administration of the Police throughout the State shall vest in the Director General of Police and the State Government has no role whatsoever in the exercise of administrative power by Director General of Police, who is the only competent authority to issue transfer order of a Police Officer. It was also contended that transfer of the Police Officer can only be recommended by the Police Establishment Committee headed by Director General of Police consisting of four senior police officers, not below rank of Inspector General of Police, nominated by the Director General of Police.

However, the provisions of the Act of 2012 was not complied and merely on the dictate of a political person, the State proceeded to transfer the Petitioner.

While the State contended that there is nothing on record to suggest that transfer of the Petitioner has been effected on account of the fact that Petitioner herein had some altercation with the son of MLA of the area concerned, rather the transfer has been ordered on administrative grounds.

Court’s Analysis

The Court noted that the transfer of the Petitioner was not on the basis of political interference, as alleged by the Petitioner, but certainly transfer of the Petitioner appears to have been made in violation of Sections 12 and 56 of the Act of 2012.

“Admittedly, in the case at hand, none of the situation/reasons, as have been detailed in Section 12 of the Act, existed in the case of the petitioner…Section 56 of the Act, if read in its entirety, clearly reveals that there shall be a State Police Establishment Committee headed by the Director General of Police, which shall recommend proposal for posting and transfer of Gazetted Police Officer of the State Government, subject to provisions of the Act and relevant rules”, the Court said.

Further, the Court opined that the record made available to the Court nowhere suggests that recommendations, if any, were ever made by the Police Establishment Committee headed by Director General of Police.

“Since record made available to this Court nowhere suggests that transfer of the petitioner vide impugned transfer order was done on the basis of recommendations given by Police Establishment Committee, headed by Director General of Police, ground of administrative exigency, otherwise sought to be set-up by learned Additional Advocate General deserves outright rejection”, the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the transfer order.

Cause Title: Anil Kumar V. State of H.P. and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:21811)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

Respondents: Rajan Kahol and B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State and Advocate Mr. Jagdish Thakur for Respondent No. 3.

Click here to read/download Judgment