Police Personnel Transfers Under Section 28 Must Specify Duration and End Upon Cessation of Administrative Exigency

The petitioner, a Police Constable originally posted in Ahmedabad City, challenged a transfer order dated 15.03.2025 (and an ancillary order dated 27.02.2025) whereby he was transferred from Ahmedabad to Junagarh District

The respondent authorities justified the transfer on the grounds that the petitioner was facing a charge-sheet in a corruption case (ACB case) and cited administrative guidelines dated 25.01.2008

The petitioner contended that the transfer violated the statutory requirements of the Bombay Police Act and lacked the necessary element of "emergent exigency"

1. Whether the transfer of a police personnel under Section 28 of the Bombay Police Act is valid if it is for an indefinite period and not necessitated by an emergent administrative exigency at the place of transfer?

Section 28 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which mandates that while police officers are always on duty and liable for employment anywhere in the State, such inter-district transfers are intended "for so long as the services of the same may be there required"

Rules 152 and 153 of the Gujarat Police Manual, which govern inter-district transfers in emergencies

The court followed the Division Bench precedent in Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala v. Director General of Police [2011 (3) GLH (UJ) 8], which established that such transfers must be for a specific duration to meet exigencies and the officer must be returned to their parent cadre once the exigency ceases

The court reasoned that under Section 28(1) and Rule 152, a transfer out of the parent district is effectively a "deputation" and must be triggered by a specific need at the destination

In this case, the transfer was not prompted by an administrative crisis in Junagarh but as a disciplinary response to a pending ACB case against the petitioner in Ahmedabad

The court noted that the transfer order failed to specify a time limit, violating the principle that such movements cannot be for an unlimited period

Furthermore, the court held that executive instructions or guidelines (like the 2006/2008 notes cited by the State) cannot override statutory rules or the Bombay Police Act; consequently, a transfer based solely on a pending corruption case without statutory "emergent exigency" is without authority of law

It held that the petitioner must be re-transferred to his parent district, Ahmedabad City

However, the court granted the respondent authority the liberty to post the petitioner anywhere within Ahmedabad District (away from the city center) or away from the specific location where the ACB Special Case No. 1 of 2025 is to be tried, to ensure the integrity of the legal proceedings

Rule was made absolute