Dismissed

Sri. C. Adarsha Kumar, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/20111/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Panchayath Development Officer challenged his transfer before the Tribunal, which dismissed the application citing complaints against him. The High Court upheld the transfer under Clause 7(1) of the transfer guidelines and dismissed the writ petition, noting a memo of charges had since been issued and enquiry entrusted to the Upa Lokayukta.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. C. Adarsha Kumar, Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31775-DB WP No. 20111 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 20111 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. C. ADARSHA KUMAR, S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KANNAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU R/A NO.H-34, BRIGADE ARCADE, CIDAR, DEVANAHALLI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:31775-DB WP No. 20111 of 2023

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BEERASANDRA, CHAPPARADA KALLU, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK.

¶18

SRI T. SRINIVAS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DODDABELAVANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI. V.R.SARATHY, ADV. FOR C/R-4, R-3 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 20/07/2023 IN APPLICATION NO.2262/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶24

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order

¶28

dated 20^th July, 2023 passed in Application No.2262 of

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31775-DB WP No. 20111 of 2023

¶30

2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal").

¶31

Heard Sri Subramani M.A., learned counsel

¶32

appearing for the petitioner; Sri Naveen Chandrashekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the official Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V.R. Sarathy, learned counsel appearing for caveator respondent No.4.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner had specifically contended that there were disciplinary proceedings pending against private respondents also, the said fact has

¶34

not been taken note of by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had dismissed the application filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order of transfer on the ground that there were complaints as against the writ petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the transfer guidelines would provide that it is only on a memo of charges being issued that an employee is liable to be transferred out even in

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:31775-DB WP No. 20111 of 2023

¶36

case there are allegations. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of DR. PATIL SHASHI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS rendered in Writ Petition No.104846 of 2022 decided on 15^th December, 2022 to contend that the fact that complaints have been received cannot be a reason to transfer out a government servant without taking action against him.

¶37

The learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent on the other hand, contends that it was on account of specific complaints made by the Members of Grama Panchayat where the writ petitioner was working that he had been moved out. It is further submitted that the private respondent was working in Kannamangala Grama Panchayat earlier and it was on account of certain allegations raised against him which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings against him that he was moved

¶38

out from the said place. It is submitted that he was exonerated of the charges in the disciplinary proceedings,

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:31775-DB WP No. 20111 of 2023

¶40

and he had been re-posted to the Kannamangala Grama Panchayat in view of the fact that the allegations against him stood disproved. It is further submitted that a memo of charges has been issued as against the writ petitioner on 04^th October, 2023 and that the disciplinary enquiry stood entrusted to the Upa Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. It is further submitted that the transfer guidelines also provide for placing an employee under deputation/transfer in lieu of placing him under suspension and that the said power has been exercised in the instant case.

¶41

Learned Government Advocate submits that there

¶42

were serious allegations against the writ petitioner and the allegations had been raised by the elected Members of the Panchayat which were taken note of by the competent authority and the transfer is effected. It is contended that later, memo of charges have also been issued and disciplinary enquiry is continuing.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:31775-DB WP No. 20111 of 2023

¶45

Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the provisions of the transfer guidelines which were in force at the relevant point of time, especially Clause 7(1) thereof, we are of the opinion that the order of transfer does not warrant interference. The Writ Petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶48

lnn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri. C. Adarsha Kumar, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. C. Adarsha Kumar, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shashikala Siddappa Wodeyar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S M Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shambulingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Shivaji

Mr.Gururaja J Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bharathi a Vs the State of Karnataka