Disposed

M Sundar v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2024WP/17116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A BBMP Tax Inspector challenged cancellation of his transfer to Market (West) office within months. The court noted the transfer was intra-zone and cancelled on cogent reasons including absence of medical certificates, but directed that he not be prejudiced by imputations.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with observation that petitioner shall not be prejudiced due to imputations leading to cancellation of his transfer.

M Sundar Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27959 WP No. 17116 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17116 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M SUNDAR S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS TAX INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ARO, MARKET WEST, BBMP, BANGALORE R/AT NO.3, BBMP QUARTERS, KUMBARA GUNDI LAYOUT, JC ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE-560002

¶9

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.03 11:18:17 +0530

¶10

(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, (BBMP),

¶14

HUDSON CIRCLE

¶15

BENGALURU-560002

¶16

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE (WEST) BBMP

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:27959 WP No. 17116 of 2024

¶19

BASHYAM PARK SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560048

¶20

ARO [ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER] MARKET (WEST) SKR MARKET 1ST FLOOR BANGALORE-560001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M A., ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 20.06.2024 BEARING NO. JAMAA (PA)/SIBBANDHI/PR/344/2023-24 PASSED BY R-2 AS PER ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER DTD. 24.06.2024 BEARING NO. SAKANA(PA-MA)EC/PR/38/2024-25 AS PER ANNX-E TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, while working as a Tax Inspector

¶27

with the office of the Assistant Revenue Officer, JJR Nagara Sub-division, Ward No.135, on 15.03.2024 is transferred to the office of the Assistant Revenue Officer, Market [West] within the West Zone. The

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27959 WP No. 17116 of 2024

¶29

petitioner is relieved on 04.05.2024 and he has reported with the office of the Assistant Revenue Officer, Market [West] on 06.05.2024. However, by the impugned order dated 20.06.2024, the transfer order dated 15.03.2024 is cancelled, and consequentially, the petitioner is called upon to report to duty with the office of the Assistant Revenue Officer, JJR Nagara Sub-division, Ward No.135.

¶30

The petitioner's grievance, as canvassed by Sri. Kalyan R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the transfer order dated 15.03.2024 is cancelled within a short period of two to three months notwithstanding the Transfer Guidelines assuring a minimum tenure.

¶31

Sri. Subramani M. A., the learned counsel for the respondents, is heard in the light of this grievance. On perusal of the annexures enclosed to the Statement of Objections, it is seen that at the first instance, the petitioner is posted with the office of the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27959 WP No. 17116 of 2024

¶33

Assistant Revenue Officer, Market [West] not on the petitioner's request but on the request of an organization stating that the petitioner must be so posted because of his health conditions, and when another organization has filed a complaint about the petitioner's functioning making certain allegations, the file is put up for appropriate decision leading to the impugned order dated 20.06.2024.

¶34

It is also seen that the decision to cancel

¶35

the transfer order dated 15.03.2024, amongst others, is for the reasons that the petitioner had worked with the office of the Assistant Revenue Officer, Market [West] initially as a Group 'D' employee and the next ten years as Tax Inspector, Group 'C' employee, and that though the petitioner was accommodated as against the request on medical condition, he has not produced any certificate to establish such condition.

¶36

This Court must observe that the Transfer

¶37

Guidelines clarify that the decision to shift an Official

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27959 WP No. 17116 of 2024

¶39

from one office to another office within the same zone

¶40

shall not be considered as a Transfer, and further, this Court may not favor the manner in which transfers are affected merely because a certain representation is filed by a certain organisation, but when ultimately decisions are taken considering all the circumstances, this Court must opine that there should be no grievance. In the present case, the cancellation of the petitioner's posting vide order dated 15.03.2024 is for the reasons as aforesaid. However, it must be observed that the petitioner shall not be prejudiced only because of certain imputations made against him by a concerned party resulting in a decision to cancel the earlier transfer.

¶41

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

M Sundar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Sundar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manikanta. N Vs the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Sri C N Narayan Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Sri. Santhosh Kumar B S Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Chandrakumar S G S/O Late S H Giriyaiah Vs State of Karnataka

K.M. Vedamurthy Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (Bescom)