Inter-district transfer of police personnel in public interest must specify a definite tenure to be legally sustainable.

The petitioner, a Head Constable originally posted at Ribada out-post under Gondal Taluka Police Station, Rajkot, was served a charge sheet and subjected to departmental inquiry following gambling raids in his jurisdiction on August 15, 2020

Despite his eventual acquittal by a competent Criminal Court, the Superintendent of Police, Rajkot, issued an order dated February 16, 2024, transferring the petitioner to another district

The petitioner challenged this inter-district transfer order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the order was punitive and lacked a specified duration

1. Whether the inter-district transfer order passed in "public interest" is legally valid if it fails to specify a definite tenure or period of operation

2. Whether the administrative power of the state to transfer police personnel under the Bombay Police Act is absolute or subject to the requirement of specifying the duration of such exigency

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

The precedents of Hadamatsinh Naharsinh Sisodiya v. State of Gujarat (SCA No. 12765 of 2010) and the Division Bench ruling in Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala v. Director General of Police (LPA No. 2277 of 2010), which established that while the State has the power to transfer, such administrative or emergency-based transfers must clarify the duration of the exigency to prevent indefinite displacement from the parent cadre

The court reasoned that although the respondent-State argued the transfer was a routine administrative measure in public interest, the impugned order suffered from a fatal legal infirmity as it did not stipulate a fixed tenure

Applying the ratio from Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala, the court observed that inter-district transfers on administrative grounds are essentially "deputations" outside the parent cadre; therefore, the authorities must specify how long the services are required to meet the specific exigency

Since the current order transferred the petitioner for an indefinite period without any indication of when he would return to his parent district, the court found it inconsistent with established legal principles and an invalid exercise of administrative discretion

The court directed the respondents to repatriate the petitioner to his parent cadre within three months from the receipt of the order