E-Paper
Uttarakhand HC seeks reply on PIL alleging violations in IAS, IPS, IFS transfers
The plea alleges that several transfers were carried out on oral directions from higher levels, followed by ex post facto approval
Prefer HTon Google
The Uttarakhand high court has directed the Union and the state governments to file counter affidavits within three weeks in a public interest litigation, alleging that transfers and postings of All India Services officers in the state have been carried out in violation of Supreme Court directions and cadre rules for over 12 years.
The petition alleges that the government has reduced the filing and scrutiny of property returns by Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers to a “clerical formality” by not adequately exercising its powers under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, to seek details of their movable and immovable assets.
A bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay heard activist Pankaj Pandey’s plea on Monday. Pandey has named the Union government’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Uttarakhand chief secretary in his capacity as chairman of the Civil Services Board, and the principal secretaries of the personnel, home and forest departments as respondents.
The bench gave the respondents three weeks to obtain instructions and to file a short counter affidavit.
Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Pandey’s counsel, said the petition is based on the Supreme Court’s October 31, 2013 judgment in “TSR Subramanian and others vs Union of India and others”. The court had directed the Union government, states and Union Territories to establish Civil Services Boards to advise on transfers and postings and provide tenure stability to civil servants.
Bansal said the DoPT subsequently amended the IAS, IPS and IFS cadre rules on January 28, 2014, providing for a minimum two-year tenure for cadre posts and Civil Services Boards to recommend appointments and transfers before completion of the prescribed tenure.
He cited documents obtained under the Right to Information Act and said that most of the “hundreds” of IAS transfers since then were made without the board’s recommendation, except on one or two occasions, although Uttarakhand constituted Civil Services Boards in 2014.
The plea alleges that several IAS transfers were carried out on oral directions from “higher levels”, followed by ex post facto approval from the chief minister. It adds that the two-year minimum tenure was violated in most such cases.
The petition says a Civil Services Board was proposed in August 2018 for IPS officers. It added the proposal was deferred citing a 2014 Supreme Court order in the Prakash Singh contempt proceedings. The home department subsequently routed postings through the Police Establishment Board, it alleges.
The petition says proposals for the IFS were placed before the board, but reasons for transfers were generally not recorded. It adds the board mechanically approved transfer lists that had been decided.
The petition alleges that the state has not sent a single quarterly report to the Union government on premature transfers and did not respond to a DoPT letter dated December 16, 2025, seeking details of the functioning of the boards.
On property returns, the petitioner cites Rule 16 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Rule 16(5) empowers the government or an authorised authority to require an officer to furnish a full statement of specified movable or immovable property and, where required, details of the means or sources through which it was acquired.
The petition alleges that despite these provisions, only one disproportionate-assets case has been registered against an IAS officer since Uttarakhand was formed.
