State Cannot Transfer Police Officers Without Recommendation By Police Establishment Committee: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reinforcing statutory safeguards for police transfers, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the transfer of a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, holding that such transfers must be made on recommendations of the police establishment committee and the State Government can't bypass this mandatory procedure.
The court said that transfers shall be in accordance with Sections 12 and 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 and should adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2006.
Justice Sandeep Sharma said: “Since it is quite apparent from the facts taken note hereinabove that petitioner herein had not completed minimum tenure of two years at the present place of posting and none of the situations/reasons, as detailed in Section 12 of the Act, ever existed in his case, coupled with the fact that at no point of time, Police Establishment Board, headed by Director General of Police, ever recommended transfer of the petitioner to the competent authority, this Court sees no impediment in interfering with the impugned transfer order, which otherwise appears to have been passed/issued for some extraneous reasons”.
Background Facts:
The petitioner, who is working as a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, challenged his transfer to the Police Training College, Daroh. He challenged the transfer on the ground that it was influenced by political interference, as he had issued a challan against a son of a local M.L.A.
He submitted that as per section 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012, the normal tenure of a Sub-Divisional Police Officer is 2 years. If a transfer is made before this period, reasons must be recorded in writing and must fall within specific statutory exceptions.
Additionally, under Section 56 of the Act, transfer of a Gazetted Police Officer must be based on a recommendation by the Police Establishment Committee, headed by the Director General of Police and comprising four senior police officers, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police.
Findings:
The Court observed that none of the exceptions, such as disciplinary action, incapacity, or administrative exigency in public interest for premature transfer under Section 12 of the Act, have been applied in this case.
Even though the State contended that the transfer was made on administrative grounds, it did not submit any genuine administrative exigency and did not explain how such a transfer took place without recommendations of the police Establishment Committee. The Court noted that this violated section 56 of the Act.
The Court noted that in this case, the transfer was nowhere made on the basis of recommendations by police establishment committee.
Thus, the Court quashed the transfer and held that the petitioner had not completed the minimum tenure of two years in his present place of posting, and at no point in time had the police establishment recommended his transfer.
Case Name: Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 105 of 2025
Date of Decision: 08.07.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3