# Constable 756 CP Charan Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 602
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-03-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15451 of 2006
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/constable-756-cp-charan-singh-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40613
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

525Transfer order-Petitioner working as
Police Constable civil Branch-Transferred
to arms branch by S.P.-objection without
sanction of Inspector General of Policecan not be transferred as they have
completed more than 10 years serviceheld-such order can not be illegal on the
ground of no want of sanction to the
sanction
by
I.G.-sanction
may
be
recorded on concerned file-not necessary
to mention in the order of Transferdirection issued to the I.G. to consider
and decide himself as the whether the
sanction be granted or not.

Held: Para 9, 10 and 11

In view of the aforesaid, the contention
raised on behalf of the petitioners that
they cannot be transferred from one
branch to another as they have put in
ten years of service as constable in Civil
Branch, cannot be accepted. This Court
holds that constables, who have put in
more than ten years of service are
2 All] Constable 756 CP Charan Singh and another V. State of U.P. and another
603
covered
by
the
2nd
paragraph
of
Regulation-525 and such constables can
also be transferred from one branch to
another,
subject,
however,
to
the
conditions
mentioned
in
the
2nd
paragraph of Regulation-525.

Therefore, the order of transfer cannot
be said to be illegal merely on the
ground that the same does not contain
any recital to the effect that sanction has
been granted by the Inspector General of
Police. Further such sanction may be
recorded on the concerned file and it is
not necessary that recital to that effect
must be made in the order itself. If is not
the case of the petitioner that such
sanction
has
been
refused
by
the
Inspector General.

However, the Inspector General of Police
is required to consider and decide for
himself as to whether sanction should be
granted or not and therefore, it is
necessary that records in respect of
transfer of police officers over ten years
of
service,
be
placed
before
the
Inspector
General
of
Police
for
consideration of the issue as to whether
the sanction is to be granted in the facts
of the case or not at the earliest.
Case law discussed:
2003 (3) UPLBEC 2038-distingished

## Text

602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
potentiality of the land or projected value
of the land. No doubt, the land may have
the potential of being used for commercial
purposes in future, but in case if the
person purchases a plot of land in a
residential area for residential purposes
(for which the sanctioned plan has also
been
passed
by
the
Development
Authority), the value of the same has to
be assessed as of a residential plot and not
as a commercial or industrial plot for
which purpose it may be used in future.
The stamp duty charged is on the value of
transaction for sale and not for the value,
which might be increased in future
because of the development of the area.
Here it is not the case of the respondents
that the petitioners have actually paid
higher amount for purchase of the said
plot. Merely on surmises that the said land
may be used for commercial purposes, the
value
of the
transaction has been
enhanced and deficiency of stamp duty
has been assessed, on which penalty has
also been directed to be paid. In the
absence of any proof of the petitioner
having paid a higher amount than that
shown in the sale deed or that as per the
circle rate for residential plot, the
respondents are not justified in charging
more stamp duty than that what has
already been paid. The impugned orders
having been passed merely on the
projected value of the plot on the basis
that it has potential for being used for
commercial purposes, is not justified and
is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, for the aforesaid
reasons, this writ petition stands allowed
and the impugned orders dated 20.6.2003
and 13.3.2003 passed by Respondent nos.
2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed.
It is further provided that any amount
which has been deposited in pursuance of
the aforesaid orders shall be refunded to
the petitioners forthwith.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15451 of 2006

Constable 756 CP Charan Singh and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Satya Prakash Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Police
Regulations-Reg.
525Transfer order-Petitioner working as
Police Constable civil Branch-Transferred
to arms branch by S.P.-objection without
sanction of Inspector General of Policecan not be transferred as they have
completed more than 10 years serviceheld-such order can not be illegal on the
ground of no want of sanction to the
sanction
by
I.G.-sanction
may
be
recorded on concerned file-not necessary
to mention in the order of Transferdirection issued to the I.G. to consider
and decide himself as the whether the
sanction be granted or not.

Held: Para 9, 10 and 11

In view of the aforesaid, the contention
raised on behalf of the petitioners that
they cannot be transferred from one
branch to another as they have put in
ten years of service as constable in Civil
Branch, cannot be accepted. This Court
holds that constables, who have put in
more than ten years of service are
2 All] Constable 756 CP Charan Singh and another V. State of U.P. and another
603
covered
by
the
2nd
paragraph
of
Regulation-525 and such constables can
also be transferred from one branch to
another,
subject,
however,
to
the
conditions
mentioned
in
the
2nd
paragraph of Regulation-525.

Therefore, the order of transfer cannot
be said to be illegal merely on the
ground that the same does not contain
any recital to the effect that sanction has
been granted by the Inspector General of
Police. Further such sanction may be
recorded on the concerned file and it is
not necessary that recital to that effect
must be made in the order itself. If is not
the case of the petitioner that such
sanction
has
been
refused
by
the
Inspector General.

However, the Inspector General of Police
is required to consider and decide for
himself as to whether sanction should be
granted or not and therefore, it is
necessary that records in respect of
transfer of police officers over ten years
of
service,
be
placed
before
the
Inspector
General
of
Police
for
consideration of the issue as to whether
the sanction is to be granted in the facts
of the case or not at the earliest.
Case law discussed:
2003 (3) UPLBEC 2038-distingished

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
is
permitted
to
implead
Inspector General of Police, Kanpur
Zone, Kanpur as respondent no.3 during
the course of the day.

2. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey,
Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel on behalf of
respondents.

3. The petitioners, who are working
as Constables in civil branch of the U.P.
Police
Subordinate
Services,
are
aggrieved by an order of transfer, dated
5th March, 2006, passed by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar,
where under the petitioner has been
transferred, for a period of six months, to
the armed branch of U.P. Police.

4. On behalf of the petitioners it is
contended that the impugned order of
transfer, runs contrary to Regulation 525
of the U.P. Police Manual and therefore,
is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The
petitioners have put in more than ten
years of service in Civil Police, therefore
they cannot be transferred to any other
branch and in support thereof reliance has
been placed upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of CN. 141 CP
Kaushlesh Singh & others Vs. State of
U.P. & others; (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2038.
In the alternative it is submitted that even
if the petitioner could be transferred from
one branch to another of the U.P. Police,
since they had completed more than ten
years of service, such transfers would
necessarily
require
sanction
of
the
Inspector General of Police and in
absence of any recital to that effect in the
impugned order, the same cannot be
legally sustained.

5. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the
records of the present writ petition.

6. With due respect to the judgment
of this Court relied upon by the
petitioners in the case of CN. 141 CP
Kaushlesh Singh & Ors. (Supra), this
Court is of the opinion that the 2nd
paragraph of Rules 525 of the U.P. Police
Manual has not taken care of in the
aforesaid judgment.
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006

7. For considering the controversy
raised by the petitioners, it would be
relevant to re-produce Regulation-525 of
the Police Manual, which reads as
follows:

"525 Constable of less than two
years' service may be transferred by the
Superintendent of Police from the armed
to the Civil Police or vice versa. Foot
Police constables may be transferred to
the mounted police at their won request.
Any civil Police constable of more than
two and less than ten years' service may
be transferred to the armed police and
vice versa by the Superintendent for a
period not exceeding six months in any
one year. All armed police constables of
over two years' service and civil police
constables of over two and under ten
years' service may be transferred to the
other branch of the force for any period
with the permission of the Deputy
Inspector-General.

In all other cases the transfer of
Police Officers from one branch of the
force to another or from the police service
of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh
requires the sanction of the InspectorGeneral"

8. From a bare reading of the
Regulation-525 it is established that the
same is in three parts:

(i) First parts deals with constables, who
have put in two years of service only.
(ii) Second parts deals with constables,
who have put in more than two years
but less than ten years of service.
(iii) Third parts deals with all other cases
of transfer of Police officers, which
includes constable, not covered by
the first and second clauses of
Regulation-525, inasmuch as the
second paragraph of Regulation 525
starts that the words 'in all other
cases', meaning thereby that the
categories of police officers not
covered by the first-two clauses, can
be transferred under last clauses of
Regulation-525.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the
contention raised on behalf of the
petitioners that they cannot be transferred
from one branch to another as they have
put in ten years of service as constable in
Civil Branch, cannot be accepted. This
Court holds that constables, who have put
in more than ten years of service are
covered
by
the
2nd
paragraph
of
Regulation-525 and such constables can
also be transferred from one branch to
another,
subject,
however,
to
the
conditions mentioned in the 2nd paragraph
of Regulation-525.

10. The 2nd Paragraph of Regulation525, however, provides that in all such
cases, transfer requires the sanction of the
Inspector General of Police, it is to be
kept in mind that the word 'prior' is not
prefixed to the word 'sanction. Meaning
thereby
that prior sanction of the
Inspector General of Police is not
contemplated by the 2nd Paragraph of
Regulation-525
and
therefore,
such
sanction can be obtained/granted by the
Inspector General of Police subsequent to
the issuance of the order of transfer in
respect of police officers, covered by 2nd
Paragraph of Regulation-525. Therefore,
the order of transfer cannot be said to be
illegal merely on the ground that the same
does not contain any recital to the effect
that sanction has been granted by the
Inspector General of Police. Further such
sanction
may
be
recorded
on
the
2 All] Vishwaraj Kumar Singh and another V. D.J., Muzaffarnagar
605
concerned file and it is not necessary that
recital to that effect must be made in the
order itself. If is not the case of the
petitioner that such sanction has been
refused by the Inspector General.

11. However, the Inspector General
of Police is required to consider and
decide for himself as to whether sanction
should be granted or not and therefore, it
is necessary that records in respect of
transfer of police officers over ten years
of service, be placed before the Inspector
General of Police for consideration of the
issue as to whether the sanction is to be
granted in the facts of the case or not at
the earliest.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the
present writ petition is devoid of merits
and is accordingly dismissed subject to
the
observations
that
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar
shall transmit all the records pertaining to
the transfer of the petitioner and other
constable, who have put in more than ten
years of service from one branch to
another for being placed before the
concerned Inspector General of Police for
consideration
of
the
sanction
in
accordance with Regulation-525 of the
U.P. Police Manual, preferably within two
weeks, from the date a certified copy of
this order is filed before the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar.
On receipt of the aforesaid, the concerned
Inspector General of Police shall apply his
mind to the facts of the present case and
shall pass appropriate orders either
refusing or sanctioning the transfer, by
means of a reasoned speaking order, at the
earliest possible. The aforesaid exercise
must be completed within four weeks
from the date the papers are so received
by the concerned Inspector General of
Police. The petitioners shall at liberty to
file such objection before the Inspector
General of Police for being retained in
their parent branch i.e. Civil Branch. The
Inspector General of Police shall also
consider the objections of the petitioners
while deciding the issue of sanction.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23946 of 1996

Vishwaraj Kumar Singh and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
District Judge, Muzaffarnagar

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Raj Kumar Jain
Sri R.C. Gupta
Sri Amit Daga
Sri R.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri K.R. Sirohi
S.C.

(A) Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial
Establishment Rules 1947-Rule-16-Right
of Appointment-Petitioners name found
place in approved roster list in March,
1991,-appointment
against
leave
vacancy before expiry of one year-No
right can be created-such appointment
should be on vacant post.

Held: Para 7

Rule-16 relied by learned counsel for the
petitioners does not help the petitioners.
The mention of appointment in Rule-16
obviously has to be appointment on a