Inter-district transfer of police personnel requires emergent administrative exigency and cannot be indefinite.

The petitioner, a police constable serving in District Morbi, challenged the order dated 30 November 2024 passed by respondent No. 2 and the consequential order dated 27 February 2025 passed by respondent No. 3, transferring him from Morbi to Kutch (East).

He contended that an inter-district transfer of a police officer under Section 28 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, read with Rules 152 and 153 of the Gujarat Police Manual, could be made only to meet an emergent administrative exigency or public-interest requirement, and that the impugned order neither recorded such exigency nor specified the duration of the transfer.

The State defended the transfer as having been made for administrative reasons and in the public interest.

The petitioner also challenged reliance on an administrative note dated 7 October 2006, which permitted transfer of police personnel in cases involving corruption or similar misconduct.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer from his parent district, Morbi, to Kutch (East) was legally sustainable under Section 28 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, read with Rules 152 and 153 of the Gujarat Police Manual, in the absence of a recorded emergent administrative exigency.

Whether a transfer made on the ground of public interest or administrative reasons could continue for an unlimited period without specifying the period for which the services of the police constable were required at the transferred place.

Whether the administrative note dated 7 October 2006 could prevail over the statutory framework governing inter-district transfers of police personnel.

The Court applied Section 28(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which permits a police officer allocated for duty in one part of the State to be employed in another part only for so long as his services are required there.

Rule 152 of the Gujarat Police Manual governs inter-district transfers in emergencies, while Rule 153 deals with ordinary transfers of police officers and police personnel from one place to another in the State.

Relying on Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala v. Director General of Police, 2011 (3) GLH (UJ) 8, as followed in Hadamatsinh Naharsinh Sisodiya v. State of Gujarat, the Court held that an emergent inter-district transfer must be connected with an actual administrative exigency, the authorities should indicate how long the services are required at the transferred place, and the officer should be returned to the parent cadre once the exigency ceases.

The Court further held that executive instructions inconsistent with statutory rules have no binding force.

The Court found that the impugned transfer order did not record any emergent administrative exigency requiring the petitioner’s services in Kutch (East).

Even assuming that the transfer was made in the public interest, the governing statutory provisions and binding precedent did not permit the petitioner to be transferred outside his parent district for an indefinite period.

The State’s general assertion that the transfer was for administrative reasons was insufficient because the transfer had to satisfy the specific statutory requirements applicable to inter-district police transfers.

The Court also rejected reliance on the 2006 administrative note, holding that it could not override or contradict Section 28 and Rules 152–153.

Accordingly, the transfer lacked legal authority and could not be sustained.

The concerned authority was directed to pass an order re-transferring the petitioner from Kutch (East) to his parent district, Morbi.

Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.