Administrative transfer based on alleged misconduct without completing preliminary inquiry as per guidelines is punitive and unsustainable.

The petitioners, serving as Unarmed Head Constables in Ahmedabad City, challenged an order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, transferring them outside the district in "public interest"

The transfers followed a private news article dated 28.01.2024 alleging misconduct

Although a preliminary inquiry was initiated on 02.02.2024, the transfer orders were issued before the inquiry concluded

Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police both exonerated the petitioners of all allegations

The petitioners contended the transfers were punitive, violated government guidelines, and were indefinite in nature

1. Whether the impugned transfer order was legally sustainable given it was issued in violation of the guidelines dated 25.01.2008 and before the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry.

2. Whether the exercise of power under Section 28 of the Bombay Police Act is valid if the transfer order fails to specify a definite tenure.

Transfer Guidelines dated 25.01.2008, which mandate a preliminary inquiry and a finding of culpability before effecting out-of-district transfers for misconduct

Section 28 of the Bombay Police Act regarding the placement of police personnel

Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala v. Director General of Police (LPA No. 2277/2010), which established that while the State has the power to transfer under Section 28, such administrative transfers must specify a period of duty and cannot be for an indefinite duration

The Court found that the transfers were not routine administrative actions but were triggered by news allegations, giving them a punitive character

By issuing the orders before the preliminary inquiry ended, the respondent violated the 2008 guidelines

Furthermore, since the subsequent inquiry reports by the ACP and SP exonerated the petitioners, the "very foundation" of the transfer—alleged misconduct—ceased to exist

Applying the Haroon Yusufbhai precedent, the Court noted that the impugned order failed to prescribe any specific tenure, effectively making the transfers indefinite, which is legally impermissible under Section 28 of the Act

The High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 04.03.2024. The respondent authorities were directed to pass consequential orders restoring the petitioners to their parent district (Ahmedabad City) within three months. Rule was made absolute.