IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2257 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present, is working as Constable in the police District Nurpur, is aggrieved of order dated 5.2.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore place to Lahaul and Spiti. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but yet he has been again transferred in violation of transfer policy, which otherwise prescribes - 2 - minimum tenure of three years at one station. Besides above, Mr. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel while making this court peruse material available on record especially reply filed by the respondents, attempted to argue that impugned transfer order being based upon the complaint and punitive in nature, cannot be sustained. He states that as per reply filed by the respondents, petitioner has been transferred on the basis of complaint, but till the time veracity of the complaint is not ascertained, petitioner could not have been transferred. Mr. Katoch states that parents of the petitioner are old and suffering from Neuro and Kidney diseases. Mr. Katoch, further states that since there is none to take care of ailing parents of the petitioner, he may be adjusted at a convenient station. 3. Respondents have filed reply to the petition stating therein that petitioner has remained posted in Police District Nurpur for last two years, but if his entire service record is seen, he mostly remained posted in Kangra. While referring to the reply, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General states that complaint filed by wife of the petitioner with regard to ill-treatment meted to her by the petitioner herein, was duly considered by the Police Establishment Committee (PEC), which in peculiar facts and circumstances found it fit to transfer the petitioner out of Police District Nurpur. He further states that record clearly reveals that petitioner is in habit of remaining absent from the duty, but yet taking a lenient view, - 3 - respondent department instead of passing harsh order, transferred him to Lahaul and Spiti. He further submits that otherwise also, petitioner never remained posted in hard /tribal area, which otherwise as per transfer policy, an employee is likely under an obligation to serve at least once in service career. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though petitioner has not completed three years in Police District Nurpur, but certainly, he remained mostly in District Kangra. Though reply filed by the respondents suggests that petitioner has been transferred on the basis of complaint, but complaint appears to have been filed by wife of the petitioner and as such, Police Establishment Committee found it necessary to transfer the petitioner from present place of posting. Besides above, it also emerges from the reply filed by the respondents that petitioner is in regular habit of remaining absent and in that regard, number of memos were issued to him. It appears that instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings, respondent with a view to afford opportunity to mend his ways, deemed it fit to post him out of the Police district Nurpur. 5. Leaving everything aside, once it is not in dispute that petitioner throughout remained posted in District Kangra, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the - 4 - adverse family circumstances, as is evident from the pleadings adduced on record, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation within one week to the competent authority, praying therein for his transfer or adjustment at nearby station enabling the petitioner to take care of his ailing parents, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer on account of adverse family circumstances. Till the time, representation, if any, filed within one week, is decided by the competent authority, interim order dated 10.2.2025, shall remain in force. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge