2025:HHC:31779 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2290 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.09.2025 Pavinder Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is serving as Constable in the respondent-Police Department. He feels aggrieved against the order dated 05.02.2025, whereby he has been transferred from Police District Nurpur to Police District Kinnaur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s wife is also serving as Constable in the respondent-Police Department. Petitioner as well as his wife were transferred from 2nd IRBn to PD Nurpur on 21.02.2024 -2- 2025:HHC:31779 by giving them concession of being a couple case. Petitioner had completed just about 11 months at PD Nurpur when under the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, he was transferred to PD Kinnaur. Petitioner should have been allowed to complete his normal tenure at PD Nurpur. It was also submitted that respondents have issued the impugned order as a punishment to the petitioner, since he could not produce an accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), SAS Nagar, Mohali from District Jail Dharamshala on 20.07.2025 due to his (petitioner’s) ill health and peculiar family circumstances; Respondents have also deducted petitioner’s three days salary for the said negligent act. Petitioner is now being made to suffer once again by ordering his transfer from PD Nurpur to PD Kinnaur. Petitioner’s wife is still serving at PD Nurpur. The couple has a four year old child, therefore, the petitioner should have been allowed to complete his normal tenure at PD Nurpur. 3. Learned Assistant Advocate General has defended petitioner’s transfer from PD Nurpur to PD Kinnaur. On the strength of reply filed by the respondents, it was highlighted that petitioner had been derelict in discharge of his duties. Petitioner’s conduct reeks of habitual reckless negligence -3- 2025:HHC:31779 which cannot be accepted from a member of the disciplined force. There have been not one but several instances of such dereliction of duties on part of the petitioner. Inquiry had also been conducted into some of them and petitioner has been imposed punishment of permanent forfeiture of three annual increments under the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 23.04.2025. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i) From the joint pleadings of the parties, it comes out that: (a) Petitioner joined the Police Department on 24.09.2016. His wife joined the Police Department on 01.10.2013. Both of them were transferred to PD Nurpur on 21.02.2024. (b) On 20.07.2024, petitioner was directed to bring an accused from District Jail Dharamshala to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Petitioner without any valid reason telephonically refused to perform the duty so assigned to him and spoke rudely to the Line Munshi. This was recorded in Rapat No.10 of Daily Diary on 20.07.2024. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in this regard on 24.07.2024. Petitioner’s response -4- 2025:HHC:31779 to the show cause notice was found unsatisfactory. In accordance with Section 87(2) (II)(C) of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007, petitioner’s 03 days pay was withheld vide order dated 03.08.2024. (c) On 25.07.2024, petitioner was called for duty by the Line Munshi. Petitioner did not report till the roll call and he was accordingly marked absent. This was recorded in Rapat No.17 of the Daily Diary on 25.07.2024. On being contacted petitioner’s wife did not provide any information about the petitioner’s whereabouts. Two Police officials were deployed to look for the petitioner in his home town and the surrounding areas. Petitioner returned to PD Nurpur on 27.07.2024. This was recorded in DD No.20 dated 27.07.2024. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nurpur was directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the absentee case on 13.08.2024. (d) In view of the report of preliminary inquiry, a regular department inquiry into cases of dereliction and willful absence from duty was ordered against the petitioner on 03.12.2024. The inquiry was entrusted to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Nurpur. During the pendency of this petition, the inquiry report was furnished and based upon that the disciplinary authority vide order dated 23.04.2025 has -5- 2025:HHC:31779 ordered permanent forfeiture of 03 annual increments of the petitioner. (e) It also comes out from the record that not only the petitioner but his wife had also been given warning notice on 13.06.2023 for disobeying and misbehaving with the Senior Officials. Additionally, on 31.10.2023, petitioner and his wife were deployed for Law & Order duty at PD Nurpur but they were found to be absent from duty, and as such were sent back to their parent unit. They were again warned for serious negligence, dereliction and indiscipline during their deployment for traffic duty vide order dated 04.12.2024. According to the respondents, the above events demonstrate petitioner’s complete disregard in diligent discharge of his duties and his utter lack of discipline. Such actions of the petitioner not only dampen the team’s morale but also reflect adversely on working of the Police Department. In view of petitioner’s acts & conduct, respondent No.3 had requested petitioner’s transfer, which was accepted by respondent No.2 and accordingly petitioner was transferred from PD Nurpur to PD Kinnaur vide order dated 05.02.2025. 4(ii). In the given facts and circumstances, in my considered view, no case of interference with petitioner’s transfer is made out. -6- 2025:HHC:31779 Respondents have given several instances of petitioner’s not only misbehaving but also defying the orders of his superiors. The instances have been duly recorded in different rapats in different daily diaries. Petitioner’s, 03 days salary had also been withheld for a particular act of negligence. On account of misadventure on petitioner’s part, a regular departmental inquiry had also been ordered against him. The inquiry report held that the charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Disciplinary proceedings were concluded by imposing punishment of permanent forfeiture of petitioner’s 03 annual increments. Petitioner belongs to a disciplined force. In the given facts and circumstances, it is certainly within the domain of his employer to keep in view all the factors governing continuation of petitioner at a particular station, its effect upon the others and in the interest of administration in particular. It is not for the Court to interfere with the transfer when neither any arbitrariness nor any mala fide has been alleged or made out against the respondents, rather the disciplinary proceedings stand concluded against the petitioner, proving not only the charge of dereliction of duties on his part but also of his misbehaving and disobeying the orders of his superiors. Impugned transfer cannot be even said to be against public interest. It is well settled that -7- 2025:HHC:31779 interference by the Court in an order of transfer at the instance of an employee holding a transferable post without any violation of statutorys provision is not permissible. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order dated 11.02.2025 stands vacated. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 16th September, 2025 Judge (rupsi)