Political Vendetta Plea Rejected: P&H High Court Declines to Interfere in Inter-Range Transfer of Punjab Police Officials
Case Name: Palwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Date of Judgment: 24 February 2026
Citation: CWP-5685-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that transfer is an incident and condition of service, and courts will not interfere in transfer orders unless there is clear mala fide, violation of statutory provisions, or incompetence of the authority. Bald allegations of political vendetta, unsupported by concrete material, are insufficient to warrant judicial interference in inter-range transfer orders of police officials.
Summary: The petitioners, serving in the Punjab Police Force on different posts, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of transfer order dated 16.02.2026 whereby they were transferred inter-range. They further sought directions to permit them to continue at their original place of posting.
The principal grievance of the petitioners was that their transfers were not based on administrative exigency but were punitive and politically motivated. It was contended that wives of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 were elected Sarpanches and were active supporters of Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD). It was also alleged that a photograph of petitioner No. 4 with SAD leader Bikramjit Singh Majithia had surfaced on social media, suggesting political vendetta behind the transfers.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the impugned order had been passed by the competent authority in public and administrative interest. It was argued that the scope of judicial interference in transfer matters is extremely limited and that no concrete material had been placed on record to substantiate allegations of mala fide. The petitioners, being holders of transferable posts, could not claim a right to remain posted at a particular station.
The Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited v. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574, reiterating that no government servant has a legal right to be posted at one place indefinitely and that transfer is an incident of service necessary in public interest and administrative efficiency. Unless a transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala fide or violation of statutory provisions, courts cannot act as appellate authorities in such matters.
Further reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, wherein the Supreme Court held that even transgression of administrative guidelines does not by itself confer an enforceable right, and judicial interference is warranted only where there is strong and convincing material establishing mala fide or statutory violation.
The Court also referred to Sri Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (SLP (C) No.22074 of 2023), wherein parameters for interference in transfer matters were delineated, including absence of pleadings of mala fide, non-joinder of persons against whom allegations are made, and absence of statutory violation.
Applying the settled principles to the present case, the Court observed that the allegations made by the petitioners were not supported by concrete material sufficient to inspire confidence. In the absence of demonstrated mala fide or violation of statutory provisions, no ground was made out to interfere with the transfer order dated 16.02.2026.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. It was clarified that the order would not preclude the petitioners from approaching the competent authorities for redressal.