Inter-District Transfer in Public Interest Must Specify a Definite Tenure to be Legally Valid

The petitioners were serving as Head Constables in Banaskantha District. Following an FIR and subsequent departmental inquiry, they were penalized with the stoppage of one increment for two years with cumulative effect.

However, the petitioners were later acquitted of the criminal charges by the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa, on 29th May 2023.

Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha, issued an order dated 3rd January 2024, directing the inter-district transfer of the petitioners citing "public interest".

The petitioners challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending it lacked a specified duration.

Whether an inter-district transfer order of police personnel passed in public interest is legally valid if it fails to stipulate a definite tenure or period for which the transfer remains operative.

The court relied on Section 28 of the Bombay Police Act, which empowers the State to employ police officers in any part of the State for as long as their services are required.

Hadamatsinh Naharsinh Sisodiya v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 12765/2010), affirmed in LPA No. 1400/2013, which mandates that transfer orders in public interest must indicate the intended duration.

The court further applied the principle from Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala vs. Director General of Police (LPA No. 2277/2010), which clarifies that inter-district transfers on administrative grounds or emergencies must specify the tenure to prevent indefinite displacement from the parent cadre.

The court examined the impugned order dated 3rd January 2024 and noted that while the state claimed the transfer was an administrative measure in public interest, the order was silent on the duration of the posting.

The court observed that the petitioners had already been acquitted of the criminal charges that presumably triggered the initial scrutiny.

Applying the ratio from Hadamatsinh and Haroon Yusufbhai, the court reasoned that an order of transfer outside the parent cadre for an indefinite period, without specifying the exigency or time frame, is inconsistent with settled law.

The court found that transferring personnel for an undisclosed, potentially permanent duration under the guise of "public interest" constitutes a misuse of administrative discretion.

It held that a transfer order in public interest must prescribe a definite tenure to be sustainable in law.

The respondents were directed to repatriate the petitioners to their parent cadre (Banaskantha District) within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Rule was made absolute.