# Rajendra Prasad Maurya v. Dy. Inspector General of Police

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 560
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-07-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27043 of 2002
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-maurya-v-dy-inspector-general-of-police-39848
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service law- Transfer order- challenged
the ground taken the provision of G.O.
being inconstant to the Rules- not
available- Police Regulation 525 itself
provide for transfer from P.A.C. to Civil
Police
Force-
visa-versa-petition
dismissed.

Held- Para 7 and 8

The power to transfer as such is vested
in Deputy Inspector General (Personnel),
U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad and
have been rightly exercised by him in
transferring petitioner from Police to
PAC.

The Government orders are neither
inconsistent nor run contrary to the
scope and object to regulation 525 of
U.P.
Police
Regulations
and
only
provided for delegation which has not
been restricted by Regulation 525 and as
such the decision cited above are not
applicable to the present case.
Case Law discussed:
1988 (8) SCC. 469
1981 (1) SCC. 675

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
560
criminal court to give benefit to the
accused of a plea even if not stated by
him in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. It is not for the accused to firmly
establish his defence and it is sufficient if
he is able to create a reasonable doubt in
the mind of the court showing a
preponderance of probability. An accused
can be convicted only when the court is in
a position to come to a definite conclusion
beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the
offences. No conviction can be placed on
mere possibilities nor it is permissible for
the court to speculate as to what had
really happened. Where both the parties
come
to
court
with
untrue
facts
concealing real truth they are themselves
to be blamed. They cannot expect the
Court to arrive at any definite conclusion
on the basis of unreliable evidence
produced either in favour or against by
either of the parties. In such cases the
court certainly owes a duty to make an
attempt to separate grain from the chaff
but if the circumstances appearing in the
case are such that it may be found to be an
inseparable task the inevitable result
would be to extend benefit of doubt to the
accused. That is particularly so when the
evidence of both the parties is thoroughly
unreliable and cannot be acted upon even
in part with safety. It is not open for the
court to bring out a third story entirely
different from the one set up by the
parties. In such cases the Court can only
say that the matter is doubtful in the trane
and it is not possible to arrive at any
definite conclusion one way or the other.
The mere fact that the version given in the
First Information Report lodged by
Mangal Khan was also not true, that
would not absolve the prosecution in
discharging its burden of proving the case
against the accused persons beyond any
reasonable doubt. Once we have found
above that the motive alleged by the
prosecution
has
not
been
firmly
established beyond doubt that the incident
had occurred at the place and in the
manner as alleged by the prosecution, it
would be hazardous to hold the appellants
guilty of the offences charged for,
particularly when neither the prosecution
nor the defence has been able to show
with certainty how and where the incident
occurred and where persons on both sides
received serious injuries and the court is
left with guesses and conjectures. In these
circumstances we are left with no option
but to acquit the accused persons by
giving them the benefit of doubt.

27. For the reasons stated above, this
appeal is allowed. The conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial court by the
judgement dated 3.3.1987 in Session Trial
No. 714 of 1973 are set aside and the
appellants are acquitted of the offences
charged for. They are on bail. They need
not surrender. Their bail bonds are
cancelled and sureties discharged.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27043 of 2002

Rajendra Prasad Maurya
...Petitioner
Versus
Dy.
Inspector
General
of
Police,
(Establishment) and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jagannath Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Rajendra Prasad Maurya V. Dy. Inspector General of Police and another
561
Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Service law- Transfer order- challenged
the ground taken the provision of G.O.
being inconstant to the Rules- not
available- Police Regulation 525 itself
provide for transfer from P.A.C. to Civil
Police
Force-
visa-versa-petition
dismissed.

Held- Para 7 and 8

The power to transfer as such is vested
in Deputy Inspector General (Personnel),
U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad and
have been rightly exercised by him in
transferring petitioner from Police to
PAC.

The Government orders are neither
inconsistent nor run contrary to the
scope and object to regulation 525 of
U.P.
Police
Regulations
and
only
provided for delegation which has not
been restricted by Regulation 525 and as
such the decision cited above are not
applicable to the present case.
Case Law discussed:
1988 (8) SCC. 469
1981 (1) SCC. 675

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jagannath Singh for
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for respondents.

2. A transfer order by which
petitioner, working as Stenographer in the
office
of
Superintendent
of
Police
(Jamunapar), Allahabad, as Sub Inspector
(M) to P.A.C. Allahabad has been
challenged on the ground that an officer
working in ministerial branch of police
force U.P. cannot be transferred to
Provincial
Armed
Constabulary
and
secondly on the ground that petitioner is
suffering from heart trouble and has been
advised treatment at Allahabad.

3. It is contended by counsel for
petitioner that Deputy Inspector General
of
Police
(Establishment),
Police
Headquarter, Allahabad has no power to
transfer petitioner to P.A.C. and that such
a power can only be exercised by Director
General of Police, U.P. as provided in
Regulation 525. U.P. Police Regulations.
Petitioner has not been listed/enrolled
under section 4 of U.P.P.A.C. Act 1948.
A Government Order relied upon by the
respondents
cannot
over-ride
the
provisions of Police Regulations made
under the U.P. Police Act 1861 inasmuch
as
the
Government
Orders
and
departmental instructions cannot over-ride
statutory provisions of law. He has relied
upon K. Kuppusamy and another Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1998) 8
S.C.C. 469 and Union of India and others
Vs. Arun Kumar Roy (1981) 1 S.C.C. 675
in support of his submission that statutory
rules cannot be over ridden by executive
orders or executive practice and that a
notification cannot over-ride statutory
rules governing service condition of the
employees.
He
submits
that
a
representation has been made with regard
to medical condition of petitioner which
has
not
been
considered
by
the
respondents.

4. Learned standing counsel has
relied upon a notification dated 21/29
March, 1990 by which Director General
of Police has in exercise of powers under
clause-1 of regulation 525 of U.P. Police
Regulations delegated the powers of
transferring a non-gazetted officers and
employees of U.P. Police from one branch
to another to Dy. Inspector General of
Police (Personnel) Police Headquarter,
Allahabad and has further delegated the
powers
of
transfer
of
Head
Constable/Constables
level
employees
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
562
from one branch to another to Police
Superintendent level employees from one
branch
to
another
to
Police
Superintendent (Personnel), U.P. Police
Headquarter, Allahabad. He has also
relied upon a policy decision taken by
Inspector General of Police (Personnel's)
U.P., Police Headquarter, Allahabad dated
16.11.1989 to all the Zonal Police
Inspector
Generals/
Police
Inspector
Generals, P.A.C., and others with regard
to the period of posting from the nongazetted officers and employees of police
ministerial cadre with reference to his
earlier
letters
dated
9.12.1985
and
25.1.1989. By these demi official circular
letters it has been clarified that during the
entire period of service of employees of
police ministerial cadre shall have to
serve for a minimum period of 10 years in
P.A.C. Battalions/Units to be divided in
three stages namely 4 years in the first
stage, and 3 years in second and third
stages, and that a posting of atleast three
years shall be given at one place which
could be extended upto 5 years. In
paragraph 12 of this circular it has been
provided that the orders of transfer to
P.A.C. Battalion/Unit, shall be issued at
the central level of police Headquarter.
These employees of ministerial staff shall
be ordinarily allotted the concerned zone/
P.A.C. Headquarter and thereafter the
concerned Inspector General of Police,
Dy. Inspector General of Police/ P.A.C.
shall allot to them the same D.I.G.
area/sector who shall give them posting in
the districts and battalions in their
respective areas. In special circumstances
the D.I.G. Police Headquarters, P.A.C.
and D.I.G. Zone can directly transfer such
officer/employees to the district/units.

5.

The
Provincial
Armed
Constabulary Act, 1948 was enacted for
constitution and regulation of united
provinces armed constabulary. Section 3
of the Act provides that there shall be
raised and maintained by the State
Government a force to be called the
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary and it
shall be constituted in one or more
companies in such manner or for such
period as may be prescribed. Section 5 of
the Act provides that subject to sections 6
to 8 every member of P.A.C. shall upon
his appointment and as long as he
continues to be a member thereof, be
deemed to be a police officer, and,
Subject to any terms, conditions and
restrictions, as may be prescribed, to have
and be subject to, in so far as they are not
inconsistent with this Act or any Rules
made
thereunder,
all
the
powers,
privileges,
liabilities,
penalties,
punishments and protection as a police
officer duly enrolled has or is subject to
by virtue of the police Act, 1861, or any
other law for the time being in force, or
any rules or regulations made thereunder.

6. The officers and employees of
P.A.C. are as such subject to provisions of
Police Act, 1861, or any rules or
regulations made thereunder. They have
same
powers,
privileges,
liabilities,
penalties, punishment and protection as a
Police Officer duly enrolled by virtue of
Police Act, 1861. Section 10 of the Act
provides that the Commandant or an
Assistant
Commandant
may
notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 9, at any time revert to Uttar
Pradesh
Police
and officer
of the
Pradeshik Armed Constabulary who has
been seconded from the Police Force. The
provisions of Police Act, 1861 and U.P.
P.A.C. Act 1948 do not restrict transfer of
police officer from U.P. Police to P.A.C.
and vice-versa. The powers can be
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Kailash Singh V. Asstt. Regional Transport Officer and another
563
exercised by Inspector General of Police
and have been delegated by the then
Director
General
of
Police/Inspector
General of Police, U.P. by notification
dated 21/29.3.1999 to Deputy Inspector
General of Police (Personnel), Police
Headquarter, Allahabad, in respect of
non-gazetted officer and employees; and
to Superintendent of Police (Personnel)
U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad in
respect of employees at the level of Head
Constable/Constables from one branch to
another branch. The branch in this
notification includes P.A.C. which has
been constituted as a branch of police in
U.P., members of which are deemed to be
police officer and/or to the Provincial
Police Act, 1861.

7. The power to transfer as such is
vested in Deputy Inspector General
(Personnel), U.P. Police Headquarter,
Allahabad
and
have
been
rightly
exercised by him in transferring petitioner
from Police to P.A.C.

8. The Government Orders are
neither inconsistent nor run contrary to
the scope and object of regulation 525 of
U.P.
Police
Regulations,
and
only
provided for delegation which has not
been restricted by Regulation 525 and as
such the decision cited above are not
applicable to the present case.

9. So far as the medical ground
setup by petitioner, the Court finds that he
is taking treatment as OPD Patient at
Nazareth
Hospital,
Allahabad
for
hypertension since 7.3.2001. Petitioner
has not been given posting by the
competent authority in P.A.C. as yet. He
has a right to represent to the competent
authority in P.A.C. for a suitable posting,
where the facilities of his treatment are
available.

10. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, no case for interference with the
transfer order has been made out. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.2010 of 2002

Kailash Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Regional Transport Officer and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S. P. Kesarwani
S.C.

Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules 1998-R-22Practice
and
procedure-
particular
provisions specified in the Rules- every
one bound to follow- other wise no relief
could
be
granted-
application
for
exemption certificate w/o following the
procedure- Court declined to interfere.

Held- Para 3

It is well settled that where a provision
is made in a statute prescribing the
particular
procedure,
that
particular
procedure has to be followed and in the
event
of
non
compliance
of
that
procedure, no benefit can be claimed by
a person.