Disposed

Sri Jayappa T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024WP/21145/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Revenue Officer challenged his transfer out of Chitradurga and posting of another officer in his place. The court found his promotion-rules objection self-defeating and noted he had since been posted at Bantwal. The petition was disposed with directions to report at Bantwal pending enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to report as Manager, Town Municipal Council, Bantwal; service continued there at least until enquiry against him concludes.

Sri Jayappa T Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33482 WP No. 21145 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21145 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI JAYAPPA T, S/O LATE G M THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHITRADURGA 577501

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SATISH K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISHVERSWARAIAH TOWERS, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

SRI PRAKASH T, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR,

¶15

WORKING AS OFFICE MANAGER,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:33482 WP No. 21145 of 2024

¶18

DAVANAGERE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI PRINCE ISSAC, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI R. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-1 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 31.07.2024 (ANNEXURE-K). QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 31.07.2024 BEARING NO. NAAAE 77 TMS 2024 (E) PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-K). GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WP TO STAY THE OPERATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND EXECUTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 31.07.2024 BEARING NO. NAAAE 77 TMS 2024(E) PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-K) AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO WORK AS REVENUE OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHITRADURGA AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.1 bearing No. NaAaE 77 TMS 2024 (E) dated 31.07.2024 by which he was transferred.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:33482 WP No. 21145 of 2024

¶28

The petitioner contends that he was transferred and posted as Revenue officer, City Municipal Council, Hiriyur on his own scale of pay vide official memorandum dated 12.08.2020 issued by respondent No.1. He was thereafter transferred to the present place as Revenue Officer, City Municipal Council, Chitradurga. The petitioner claimed that a notice dated 12.07.2023 was issued to him to show cause against certain allegations made while he was working at Hiriyur. He submitted his reply. Following this, he was placed under suspension on 26.07.2023. This order of suspension was stayed by this Court in W.P No.16563/2023. As a result, the petitioner continued as Revenue Officer, CMC, Chitradurga. The petitioner claimed that the services of respondent No.3 was placed at the disposal of respondent No.2 to provide him posting as Revenue Officer, Chitradurga. He claimed ignoring his requests, to continue him as Revenue Officer, Chitradurga, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order transferring the respondent No.3 to the place of petitioner.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner has contested the impugned order on two grounds

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33482 WP No. 21145 of 2024

¶31

i) That respondent No.3 who was earlier working at Davanagere Municipal Corporation could not be posted at the City Municipal Council, Chitradurga as such posting has to be done in accordance with Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and

¶32

Employees) Rules, 2010. He contended that as per schedule - II of the rules, the post of Revenue Officer is to be filed up by promotion from the cadre of FDA.

¶33

ii) That no posting is given to the petitioner and hence the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. In support of the above contention, he relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt Seema H Vs. State of Karnataka and other judgments following it.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently reiterated the above contentions.

¶35

In response, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that, the petitioner was accused of certain irregularities and an enquiry was contemplated against him and therefore, he was transferred out of the place where he was officiating so as to keep him out of the mischief zone.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:33482 WP No. 21145 of 2024

¶38

This Court, in terms of the order dated 08.08.2024 called upon the Additional Government Advocate to obtain instructions regarding the posting of the petitioner to an appropriate place.

¶39

Learned Additional Government Advocate has today handed over an official memorandum dated 20.08.2024, whereby the petitioner is now posted against the vacant post of Manager at Town Municipal Council, Bantwal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has received a copy of this official memorandum and submits that instead of posting the petitioner at Town Municipal Council, Bantwal, the respondent No.1 could consider posting him at City Municipal Council, Chitradurga.

¶40

Of the two contentions urged by the petitioner, the first contention cuts his own case as he was not a FDA at City Municipal Council, Chitradurga but was posted there and not promoted. Therefore, the first ground falls flat on its face. So far as the second contention, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have now posted the petitioner at Bantwal and hence the second contention also stands liquidated. On perusal of the impugned

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:33482 WP No. 21145 of 2024

¶43

order of transfer, it is seen that the petitioner was accused of certain irregularities when he was working as a Revenue Officer at City Municipal Council, Hiriyur. Therefore, it was unwise to post the petitioner at City Muncipal Council, Chitradurga as he had to be kept out of the mischief zone. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed off , directing the petitioner to report the duty as the manager at Town Muncipal Council, Bantwal. His service shall be continued at Bantwal until at least the enquiry

¶44

is concluded against him in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

THM

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Jayappa T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayappa T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vikram Y Yadahalli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramegowda S K Vs Additional Chief Secretary

Sri K Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.C. Manjunath Vs the Managing Director

Dr Monika Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumantharaya Vs Bengaluru Electric Supply Company