Allowed

Sri R Padmanabhan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/24653/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Environmental Officer challenged his premature transfer to accommodate a respondent within his minimum two-year tenure at Hoskote. The Court found no special or exceptional reasons recorded in the transfer file and no approval of the Chief Minister as mandated by the transfer guidelines, and quashed the transfer and movement orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 30.08.2024 and movement order dated 03.09.2024 transferring respondent No.3 to petitioner's place quashed; respondents free to post respondent No.3 appropriately within tw

Sri R Padmanabhan Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24653 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. R. PADMANABHAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O M. RAMAMAYAKA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE, KSPCB, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560067. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

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

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGY, REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, 4^TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶11

THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PARISARA BHAVAN, 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR, NO.49, CHRUCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

V.S. KUMAR AGE NOT KNOWN

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶14

WORKING AS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, SH4, NAUBAD, BIDAR-585402.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. KRISHNA B., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 VIDE C¥ÀfÃ 292 E¦¹ 2024 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AND ALSO QUASH THE TRANSFER AND MOVEMENT ORDER DATED 03.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND D1 VIDE NO.ªÀÄ¤ªÀÄ 50 DqÀJ 2024/1075 & ªÀÄ¤ªÀÄ 50 DqÀJ 2024/1081 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERN ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has called in question a communication dated 30.08.2024 addressed by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 transferring him to the place of respondent No.3 and the consequent movement order bearing No.C¥ÀfÃ/292/E¦¹/2024 dated 03.09.2024 issued by the

¶22

respondent No.2.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶25

The petitioner contends that he was transferred on 06.03.2023 and posted as Environmental Officer at the Regional Office of the respondent No.2, Hoskote. The petitioner claimed that he took charge on 09.03.2023. He contends that he was a Group-B employee and as per the guidelines dated 25.06.2024 issued by the State Government relating to transfer of its employees, he was entitled to continue as Environmental Officer at Hoskote for a minimum period of two years. He therefore contends that he has another six months remaining before he completes the minimum tenure. He contends that by an order of transfer dated 15.07.2024, the 3^rd respondent was transferred from the Head Office, Bengaluru to Bidar. Within a span of 01 month 15 days, the 3^rd respondent pulled strings in the State Government and got the order of his transfer dated 15.07.2024, modified. Consequently, by an order dated 29.08.2024, the 3^rd respondent was transferred as Environmental Officer, Central Office, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued the impugned communication transferring the 3^rd respondent to the Regional Office, Hosakote and posted the petitioner as Environmental Officer, Cenral Office, Bengaluru. The respondent No.2 then issued a

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶28

movement order dated 03.09.2024. Therefore, the petitioner apprehending that the 3^rd respondent may assume charge of the office at Hoskote has filed this writ petition. The petitioner

¶29

has raised the following contentions:

¶30

(i) the transfer and posting of petitioner at Hoskote was on 06.03.2023 and therefore, he could not have been disturbed before he completed his minimum tenure at Hoskote;

¶31

(ii) that the transfer of respondent No.3 to displace the

¶32

petitioner was not due to any exceptional circumstances and the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was not obtained.

¶33

(iii) that the 3^rd respondent had worked within Bengaluru Zone for over 24 years out of his 26 years of service. The petitioner therefore, contends that the transfer of the 3^rd respondent to the place of the petitioner is ill-motivated and driven by other considerations.

¶34

The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the file relating to transfer of the petitioner and respondent

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶36

No.3 shows that there was no application of mind by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and there is no reason mentioned in the order of transfer. He contends that in the transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024, it is incumbent to specify the reasons for premature transfer of the 3^rd respondent to the place of the petitioner. He contends that since the file does not disclose any reason, it has to be obviously understood that, it is for extraneous consideration.

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel for 3^rd respondent submits that the transfer of the 3^rd respondent was approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and therefore, there was substantial compliance of transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024 and therefore, prays that this Court may not interfere with the order of transfer.

¶38

I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.3.

¶39

The learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the file relating to transfer of the petitioner and 3^rd respondent. He submits that the transfer of 3^rd

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶41

respondent is done in accordance with the guidelines dated 25.06.2024.

¶42

The State Government has by an executive order dated 25.06.2024 framed the guidelines relating to transfer of its employees. The word 'transfer' is defined as follows:

¶43

"(2) "Transfer" means posting of a Government servant from a post to take up duties of another post from one headquarters to another headquarters or in a case where the office of a department/field department/commissionarate/ directorate, other office in an existing headquarters is changed and the office shifted to another headquarters."

¶44

The power to make general transfer between 25.06.2024 to 09.07.2024 is delegated to the Minister in charge of the respective department and the number of such transfers during 2024-2025 should not exceed 6% of the working strength in a unit. Under Guidelines 5(3), any transfer considered necessary due to special or exceptional reasons should be submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and transfer shall be made only after obtaining his approval. Therefore, after general transfers, if the authorities feel that due to special or exceptional circumstances, transfers should be effected, it shall be kept to

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶46

the bare minimum and shall be only after obtaining the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024 mandate that the number of transfers to be made due to special or exceptional reasons, shall be limited to the minimum extent and in case transfer is considered necessary in specific cases, the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister is necessary.

¶47

In the case on hand, the petitioner was transferred and posted at Regional Office, Hosakote on 06.03.2023. He was entitled to continue as such for a minimum period of two years i.e. March 2025. However, the 3^rd respondent who was earlier transferred to a vacant post at Bidar in terms of an order dated 15.07.2024, managed to get it cancelled and was retransferred to the Central Office, Bengaluru on 29.08.2024. The petitioner who was transferred to the Regional Office at Hoskote on 06.03.2023 is now disturbed by the impugned order by which, the 3^rd respondent is transferred and posted at his place. A perusal of the file relating to the transfer of the petitioner and 3^rd respondent shows that there was no special or exceptional reasons mentioned which necessitated the transfer of 3^rd

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶49

respondent to the place of the petitioner. This apart, the file does not disclose that the transfer was effected after obtaining the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. On the contrary, the movement order dated 03.09.2024 states that the movement order was approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Therefore, the reasons for which, the 3^rd respondent was transferred to the place of the petitioner is not convincing, but gives an impression that it is done for extraneous consideration.

¶50

In that view of the matter, the impugned communication addressed by respondent Nos.1 to 2 transferring the respondent No.3 to the place of petitioner and the consequent movement order dated 03.09.2024 permitting the 3^rd respondent to report at Regional Office, Hoskote deserves to be interfered with.

¶51

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 30.08.2024 addressed by respondent Nos.1 to respondent No.2 transferring the 3^rd respondent to the place of petitioner and the consequent movement order dated 03.09.2024 issued by respondent No.2, allowing the 3^rd respondent to report at Regional Office,

¶52

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37086 WP No. 24653 of 2024

¶53

Hoskote are quashed. Since the respondent No.3 is left with no other posting, respondent Nos.1 and 2 may consider making appropriate posting within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since it is stated that the respondent No.3 has served for more than 24 years in and around Bengaluru and as he failed to report to duty at Bidar and had no reason in doing so, the respondent No.1 shall consider transferring him out of Bengaluru Urban/Bengaluru Rural District.

¶54

Office is directed to return the file relating to transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.3 to the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶55

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Sri R Padmanabhan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Padmanabhan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Benakesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs the Kuvempu University

Sri Manjunath Banni Vs the General Manager

Sri G B Marappa Vs State of Karnataka

Jayaram Reddy Vs the Managing Director Corporation Office

Smt Chandrakala Vs the State of Karnataka