Administrative transfers of police personnel need not record reasons that could render them punitive.

The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police, challenged his transfer from Dehradun to Pithoragarh on administrative grounds.

The judgment records that the transfer order was dated 6 August 2026 and that he was relieved to join at Pithoragarh on 14 August 2026; it also describes the order under challenge as dated 25 July 2026.

He argued that he had served in Dehradun for only about one and a half years, that the transfer to a hilly area violated the minimum-tenure policy under the Transfer Act, 2017, and that the transfer followed a complaint without a proper inquiry.

He also cited the effect on his children’s schooling.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Act did not apply to the Police Department and that the transfer was made on administrative grounds after inquiry.

The appellant then brought this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the appellant could rely on the minimum-tenure provisions of the Transfer Act, 2017, to challenge his transfer.

2. Whether the transfer was unlawful because it was based on a complaint without a proper inquiry, reasons in the transfer order, or an opportunity of hearing.

Section 1(3) of the Transfer Act, 2017, as applied by the Court, excludes the Police Department from the Act’s operation.

An employee may be transferred on administrative grounds to promote better administration and efficiency; recording reasons that disclose a punitive purpose may make a transfer punitive in nature.

The Court distinguished Vishal Ashwin Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (S) Circle 25(3) & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322, in which the Supreme Court remitted a matter because the High Court had dismissed the writ petition without addressing the grounds raised.

The Court held that the appellant could not claim the Transfer Act’s minimum-tenure protection because the Act did not apply to the Police Department.

It accepted that a complaint about the appellant’s discharge of duties had led to an inquiry, following which the department found some negligence and considered transfer appropriate in the interests of administration.

The absence of recorded reasons did not invalidate the order: the Court reasoned that setting out reasons could make the transfer punitive, whereas the department could transfer an employee administratively to improve efficiency.

It also found Vishal Ashwin Patel inapplicable because that case concerned a cryptic High Court order that failed to address the grounds raised, unlike the matter before it.

Any pending application was also disposed of.