Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Bharmal on 1 December, 2021Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 609/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Dy. Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Police (D.G.P.), Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer, Rajasthan.
—-Appellants
Versus
Achala Ram S/o Shri Jetha Ram, Aged About 55 Years, House
No. Ha-02, Mahavir Nagar, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Hall Asst. Sub
Inspector Of Police, Police Line, Barmer, Rajasthan).
—-Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 657/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Rural Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Dama Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Burkiya, Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 658/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur. —-Appellants
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:38 PM)
(2 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
Versus
Teja Ram S/o Shri Ramdev, Aged About 35 Years, Village
Makhampura, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 659/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Kailash Dan S/o Mahesh Dan, Aged About 43 Years, Karni
Colony, District Nagaur (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 660/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Lukman S/o Shri Abdul Sattar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village-
Khajuwana, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur.
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 661/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
—-Appellants
Versus
Subhash Chandra S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Ugras,
Post Khara, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:38 PM)
(3 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 662/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Ram Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Village
Ramsar, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 663/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Suresh Kuamr S/o Kishnaram, Aged About 44 Years, Hirni Dhani,
Degana, District Nagaur (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 664/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash S/o Shri Jassaram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
Siradhana, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 665/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:38 PM)
(4 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Likhma Ram S/o Gumanaram, Aged About 47 Years, Village
Satheran, District Nagaur (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 666/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (D.g.p.), Police
Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Range
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Barmer, Rajasthan.
5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Tane Singh S/o Shri Jethmal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Village
Aarang, Tehsil Shiv, Barmer. At Present Head Constable, Ps
Balotra District Barmer.
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 667/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), DGP Office,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Barmer.
—-Appellants
Versus
Mahesha Ram S/o Shri Jawara Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:38 PM)
(5 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
Resident Of Village Krishan Ka Tala, Somrar, Tehsil Dhanau,
District Barmer (Raj.) At Present Posted As Head Constable, At
Police Station Dhorimana, District Barmer (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 668/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Ramswaroop S/o Shri Surja Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Rotu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 669/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, District
Jodhpur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Shyamlal S/o Shri Bhakar Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Khedi
Salwa, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 671/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Banshilal S/o Shri Bhagchand, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Panchla
Sidha, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur (Raj).
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(6 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 672/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.
5. Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Tarachand, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident Of Village Kalri, Tehsil Rajgarh, Churu. At Present Head
Constable, Police Line, Hanumangarh.
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 673/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Daya Sindhu S/o Shri Lekhram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Rotu,
Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 674/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Banwari Lal S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Village Bhutawa Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj). —-Respondent
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(7 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 675/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Bharmal S/o Shri Rampal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village
Rotu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 676/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Sharwan Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Village Alai, Tehsil Shribalaji, District Nagaur (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 677/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Dhula Ram S/o Shri Shankarlal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Village Rotu, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj).
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 678/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(8 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Pabu Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident Of Ishrawalo Ki Dhani, Laxman Nagar, Shri
Lachamnagar, Jodhpur.
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 679/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Churu.
5. The Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Karan Singh S/o Shri Harlal Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Resident
Of Village Kulhriyo Ka Bas, Tehsil Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu. At
Present Posted As Constable At, Police Line, Churu.
—-Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 680/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of
Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Rural Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Jhumar Ram S/o Shri Naina Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Village Hingoli, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj). —-Respondent
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(9 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 681/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Churu.
5. The Superintendent Of Police (Hq), Jaipur.
—-Appellants
Versus
Naveen Kumar Shoran S/o Shri Ramotar, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Village Bhandwa, Tehsil Bhadra, Bhiwani, At Present
Posted As Constable At, Police Line, Churu.
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with
Mr. Kailash Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Naveen, caveator
Mr. Jasraj Singh
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
01/12/2021
This group of appeals arise out of the common judgment of
the learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2021. Issue pertains to
posting of Constables and Head Constables of the State Police
Department outside their districts and the Assistant Sub-
Inspectors outside their range. The learned Single Judge had
come to the conclusion that the posting of such police officials
outside their zone of transfer liability are not permissible in the
guise of deployment. The State has preferred these appeals
against the said judgment.
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(10 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
Several other appeals, the lead case being D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No.610/2021, State of Rajasthan and others
vs. Surendra Khokhar (Kumar) and connected appeals arising
out of the same judgment involving same issues had come up for
consideration before this Court on 29.11.2021. These appeals
were dismissed in following terms:
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the documents on record, we do not
find that the learned Single Judge has committed any
error. There is absolutely no dispute about the facts
that for Constables and Head Constables a district is a
unit for the purposes of recruitment, promotion and
seniority. Likewise, for the Assistant Sub-Inspector the
range, which would include several districts, forms such
a unit. Even the Government has not dispute that by
virtue of such administrative divisions, ordinarily a
Constable and Head Constable would be transferred
within the district and Assistant Sub-Inspector would
be transferred within a range. In other words, except
under Section 34 of the Act, the administration would
be in a position to transfer these officials within such
areas alone. In this context, we may peruse Section
34 of the Act and Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules.
The preamble to the Act provides that to
consolidate and amend the law relating to police force
in the State and mattes connected therewith or
incidental thereto, the Act was enacted for the
following purposes:
“WHEREAS, respect for and promotion of the
human rights of the people, and protection of
their civil, political, social, economic and cultural
rights is the primary concern of the Rule of law;
AND WHEREAS, it is the constitutional
obligation of the State to provide impartial and
efficient Police Service safeguarding the interests
of vulnerable sections of the society including the
minorities, and responding to the democratic
aspirations of the citizens;
AND WHEREAS, such functioning of the
police personnel needs to be professionally
organized, service oriented, free from extraneous
influences and accountable to law;
AND WHEREAS, it is expedient to redefine
the role of the police, its duties and
responsibilities by taking into account the
emerging challenges of policing and security of
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(11 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
State, the imperatives of good governance, and
respect for human rights;
AND WHEREAS, it is essential to
appropriately empower the police to enable it to
function as an efficient, effective, people-friendly
and responsive agency.”
Section 13 of the Act pertains to Director General
of Police. Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act
provides that the State Government shall appoint a
Director General of Police for the overall control,
supervision and direction of the police force, who shall
exercise such powers, perform such functions and
discharge such duties, and have such responsibilities,
as may be prescribed. Section 14 of the Act pertains to
control, supervision and direction of police force in a
police range. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the said
Act provides that the State Government shall appoint
an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector
General of Police to be in-charge of a police range.
Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides that the power
of control, supervision and direction of the police force
in a police range shall, subject to the overall control of
the Director General of Police, vest in the officer in-
charge of the police range. Section 16 of the Act
pertains to control, supervision and direction of police
force in a police district. Sub-section (1) of Section 16
provides that the State Government may appoint a
District Superintendent of Police for a police district. As
per Sub-section (2) of Section 16, the power of control,
supervision and direction of the police force in a police
district shall, subject to the overall control of the
Director General of Police, vest in the District
Superintendent of Police.
It can, thus, be seen that the said Act has been
enacted for the purpose of creating a sensitive, efficient
and people friendly police force. Overall control and
supervision of the police force vests in the Director
General of Police, whereas the State is divided into
police district and police range. Subject to the overall
control of the Director General of Police, supervision
and control of the officials within the district and range
would be vested in the respective heads of the unit.
Section 34 of the Act reads as under:
“34. Police officers may be deployed in any
part of the State – Every police officer may, at
any time, be deployed as a police officer in any
part of the State.”
As per this provision thus every police officer
may, at any time, be deployed as a police officer in any
part of the State. Before we refer to this provision, we
may also refer to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules,
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(12 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
on which reliance was placed by learned Additional
Advocate General. Rule 3 of the Rules pertains to
powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of
Director General of Police. As per Sub-rule (1) of Rule
3, the overall supervision and control of the police force
of the State shall vest in the Director General of Police.
As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the Director General of
Police shall be assisted by one or more Additional
Directors General of Police and other officials
mentioned therein. As per Clause (a) and (h) of Sub-
rule (4) of Rule 3, the Director General of Police may
issue orders to the police force for maintenance of law
and order and regulation, deployment, movement and
location of the members of the police force of the
State.
Neither Section 34 of the Act nor Sub-rule (4) of
Rule 3 of the Rules would empower the Director
General of Police to routinely transfer a Constable or a
Head Constable outside his parent district or Assistant
Sub-Inspector outside his range. Section 34 is an
extra-ordinary power authorising the Director General
of Police to deploy any police official anywhere in the
State. There is no denying or even questioning such
wide powers. In the interest of administration of police
force and for maintaining the law and order and
managing sensitive situations, which may arise in the
State, such powers are vested in the Act. However,
there is a vast difference between ‘transfer’ and
‘deployment’. In service jurisprudence, the term
‘transfer’ has a clear and well defined connotation
where the headquarter of the employee and the range
within which he would have to discharge his duties get
shifted with his transfer from one place to another.
Such transfer liability is always defined over a
geographical area or a certain zone. Unless rules
specifically provide, transfer outside such zone would
not be permissible. Deployment, on the other hand,
connotes a temporary posting of an employee to meet
with emergent situations not necessarily confined to
tackling sensitive law and order situation alone. It is
neither possible nor necessary for us to go into the
question as to under what circumstances, such powers
of deployment can be exercised. Firstly, no such
situation arises in the present case. Secondly, such
deployment is left at the discretion of the Director
General of Police. However, in the present case, the
state administration has exercised the power of
deployment for transferring a large number of
employees. In the Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar
2nd Edition of 2007, the term ‘deployment’ is described
as “to spread out troops so as to form an extended
front line”. Likewise, in the Oxford English Dictionary
(Shorter) the word ‘deployment’ is described as
“spread out (troops etc.) to form an extended line
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(13 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
instead of a column; bring (armaments, men, etc.) into
position for action and to bring into or position for
effective action or make good use of”.
It can thus be seen that in Law Lexicon and
Oxford English Dictionary the term ‘deployment’ is seen
as posting of available man power in a particular
position for effective action to deal with an emergent
situation. The power of deployment referred to in
Section 34 of the Act, thus, cannot be misunderstood
as one for routine transfers. The learned Single Judge
was perfectly justified in coming to such a conclusion.
Neither Clause (a) nor clause (h) of Sub-rule (4) of
Rule 3 of the Rules would make any change in this
position. As noted above, under the said clauses, the
Director General of Police can issue orders to the police
force for maintenance of law and order and for
regulation, deployment, movement and location of the
members of the police force of the State. None of these
powers would enable the Director General of Police to
order transfer of employees outside the zone of
transfer liability.
The decision in the case of Kashmir Singh (supra)
was rendered by the Supreme Court in vastly different
statutory provisions. In the said case, the police
officials were governed by the Police Act, 1861 and
Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Rule 1.5 of the Punjab
Police Rules, 1934 specifically provided that all police
officers appointed or enrolled in either of the two
general police districts constitute one police force and
are liable to, and legally empowered for, police duty
anywhere within the province. No sub-division of the
force territorially or by classes, such as mounted and
foot police, affects this principle. This Rule further
provided that every police officer shall be liable to
serve at any place, whether within or outside the State
of Haryana and in any organisation under the Central
Government. Rule 12.26 was specifically for inter-
district transfers and provided that exchange of
appointment between lower subordinates in districts of
the same range or between such police officers in
railway and district police, may be effected subject to
the approval of the Superintendents concerned. A
lower subordinate may be transferred to fill a vacancy
in a district other than that in which he is serving only
with the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of
the range. It was in such background, the Supreme
Court held that the inter-district transfers of police
officials was permissible. In the present case, no such
statutory scheme holds a field. On the contrary, the
statutory provisions limit the transfer liability of the
Constable and Head Constable within the district and
the Assistant Sub-Inspector within the range. Section
34 of the Act would empower the Director General of
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
(14 of 14) [SAW-609/2021]
Police to deploy such police officials anywhere in the
State, but the term ‘deployment’ is not synonym with
‘transfer’.
We are prepared to proceed on the basis that the
order dated 05.08.2021 saves the seniority of the
transferred police officials in their parent district or
range. However, this by itself would not authorise the
administration to transfer the police officials outside
their zone of transfer liability.
In the result, the appeals are dismissed.”
Under the circumstances, these appeals are also dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
103to128-MohitTak/-
(Downloaded on 01/12/2021 at 09:16:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Comments