HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13928 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging transfer order dated 17.07.2025 as well as relieving order dated 25.07.2025. 3. It has been submitted that impugned order has evidently been passed in pursuance of a report dated 24.06.2025. It is submitted that petitioner has been transferred as a mode of punishment and not in the course of routine transfer and therefore such transfer is barred in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari versus Union of India reported in (2009)2 SCC 592. 4. Learned State counsel has been provided written instructions dated 03.12.2025, a copy of which is taken on record along with the copy of report dated 24.06.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupam Shukla, Manish Vaish Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rammurti (Pno-942232718) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. A perusal of the aforesaid report makes it evident that serious allegations were levelled against petitioner of being inebriated and of misbehaviour with Superior Authority. It is also indicated that disciplinary proceedings were instituted against petitioner resulting in imposition of minor penalty vide order dated 08.05.2025. 6. It is thus evident that transfer of petitioner has been effected as a mode of punishment and not in the course of routine transfer. 7. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of Some Tewari (supra) as well as in the case of Praful Sengar versus State of U.P. and others passed by this Court in Writ A No.10850 of 2025. 8. Upon scrutiny of the aforesaid judgments, it is no doubt true that it has been held in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) that transfer cannot be effected as a mode of punishment and the same has been followed in the case of Praful Sengar (supra). 9. Nonetheless it is also evident that the aforesaid judgments have been passed not with regard to personnel who were in the disciplined forces such as Army, Paramilitary forces or the Police. In the case of Praful Sengar (supra), the petitioner therein was a computer operator in the Police Department was accused only of negligence with regard to discharge of duties. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conduct required from members of disciplined forces is higher than is required in cases of WRIA No. 13928 of 2025 2 ordinary employment with the Government particularly looking into the nature of allegations or charges levelled against them. 11. In such circumstances, blanket application of judgment rendered in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) is required to be avoided. 12. In the present case, it is evident that petitioner is a sub-inspector in the police force stands not only accused but was also found guilty in inquiry proceedings of misbehaviour with superior authorities while being inebriated. 13. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence to petitioner. However liberty is granted to petitioner to provide his options to the authorities in the next routine transfers which may be considered. 14. With aforesaid direction, petition stands finally disposed of. December 4, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 13928 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench