Police officials attending marriage reception of son of a criminal is a sufficient ‘Public Interest’ to transfer them : Gujarat HC

Gujarat High Court, earlier this month refused to interfere with a Transfer order passed against three Police Constables on the ground that they were found attending a marriage reception of the son of a noted bootlegger. Holding that such a transfer order was in Public Interest, Justice J.B.Pardiwala said “If   a   police constable is found to be in company of criminals or   persons   accused   of   having   committed   any offence then his transfer from that place must be held to be in the public interest.”

Public interest demands that an officer or an employee posted at a particular post, must inspire confidence, not only among his fellow employees   and superior   authorities,   but   also among   the   members   of   the   public, the Court said. The Court further held whatever furthers the general interest of the Community, as opposed to the particular interest of the individuals, must be regarded as public purpose. The court said “‘In the context of public service it would mean the interest of public as opposed to the personal, political  or other extraneous interest.”

The Court was considering the Writ petition challenging transfer orders moved by three Police Constables. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that attending the wedding reception has nothing to do with the public interest and the word “Public Interest” used in the orders of transfer is vague. Rejecting those contentions, the court said that police constables attending the reception“necessarily implies the close proximity of the police constables with a noted bootlegger”. The court further said that it is desirable that such police constables should be kept at a distance so that their position is not abused by criminals.

Relying on the decision by Gujarat High Court in Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala   V.   Director   General   of   Police   2011 (3) GLH(UJ) 8 the Counsel also said that the transfer of a head constable  from   one   district   to   the   other   amounts   to  deputation   and   can   be made   only   on  administrative grounds in cases of emergency, which is not the case here. Answering that aspect the Court held “The words in Article   154(3)(D) “unless such a transfer is considered  necessary”   should   not   be   construed   as   the  necessity of transfer under Section 28 alone.”  The court added “It   is   the   existence   of   the   circumstances      constituting the public interest which is to be seen by the Court, once the circumstances are shown to have existed, the sufficiency of the circumstance is for the government to decide”.

Read the Judgment here.

Full View