Allowed

Smt Savitha J v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2024WP/6402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deputy Tahsildar challenged a Tribunal order quashing her transfer notification on grounds of incomplete tenure and lack of recorded reasons for premature transfer. The High Court held bulk transfers need not record reasons per officer when Chief Minister approved, noted acquiescence and pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings, set aside the Tribunal's order, and confirmed the transfers.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order dated 16.02.2024 in A.No.4361/2023 set aside; transfer orders dated 27.09.2023 confirmed vis-a-vis petitioner and third respondent.

Smt Savitha J Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 6402 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. SAVITHA J, W/O LATE B.N RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, YESHWANTHAPURA -2, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560 022.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. M.S.BHAGAWATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶17

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 027.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶19

SMT. KALAVATHI M, W/O CHANNEGOWDA R.G, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NOW PRESENTLY WORKING AS AUDIT SHIRASTEDAR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001. RESIDING AT NO 35, OJUS 'GNANAJYOTHINAGAR', 10^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALORE 560065

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. RAGHAVENDRA AND SMT. GAYATHRI, ADVOCATES FOR C/R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/02/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.4361/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.4361/2023 PREFERRED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARYHEARING, THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 16.02.2024 passed in A.No.4361/2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the petitioner and setaside the order bearing No.E.KamE 213 BMM 2023 dated 27.09.2023 passed by the first respondent insofar as the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶27

petitioner and the third respondent are concerned. Further, the Tribunal directed that the third respondent is entitled to continue in the said place till her transfer is necessitated in accordance with law.

¶28

The facts that are apposite for consideration as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶29

The third respondent was initially appointed as First Division Assistant in the year 2004 on compassionate ground at Kodagu District and she has completed her probationary period without any adverse remarks and in the year 2012, she was promoted as Shirestedar/Deputy Tahsildar at Kodagu District. In the year 2013, the third respondent has made a request for transfer from Mysuru Division to Bangalore Division. On the basis of her request, the first respondent transferred her to Bengaluru Division and thereafter, she discharged her duties in various places at Bengaluru Division. In the month of March 2020, she was posted to Yeshwanthpura-II Nadakacheri, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru on OOD basis. Subsequently, she was regularly transferred to the said place vide Official Memorandum dated 20.11.2020. In pursuant to the same, she

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶31

reported for duty on 25.11.2020 and discharged duty in the said place. Things stood thus, the first respondent has issued transfer order dated 27.09.2023, by posting the petitioner to the third respondent's place and the third respondent transferred to Audit Shirestedar, Revenue Department, M.S Building, Bengaluru to the vacant place vide O.M. dated 27.09.2023. In the said transfer order, the names of the third respondent and petitioner appeared in Sl.No.8 and 29 respectively. Being aggrieved by the said transfer notification, the third respondent approached the Tribunal to set-aside the same.

¶32

The Tribunal, after assessment of oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel so also the documents placed before it, passed the impugned order by allowing the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2024 as stated supra . Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

¶33

We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. M.S.

¶34

Bhagwat for Sri. Satish K for petitioner so also the learned counsel Sri. Raghavendra G Gayathri for respondent No.3 so

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶36

also the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶37

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Tribunal is wholly illegal for the reason that, the Tribunal has erred while considering the tenure of the third respondent as Deputy Tahsildar, Yeshwanthapura-II Nadakacheri, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore with effect from 25.11.2020. As a matter of fact, the third respondent was worked on OOD basis in the said place from 05.03.2020. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have calculated the stay of the third respondent in the said post from 05.03.2020 instead of 25.11.2020. He would further contend that the transfer order is to be read and made effective on and from the expiry of the minimum tenure. In the case on hand, the third respondent has not completed her minimum tenure and it was 153 days short for completing her tenure of 4 years at Yeshwanthpura-II Nadakacheri, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. Hence, balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. He would contend that the third respondent is facing departmental enquiry as well as criminal case, which is pending for

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶39

adjudication. As such, the third respondent cannot hold an executive post as provided under Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013. According to the learned Senior counsel, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law declared by this Court in the case of Smt. Nagaveni vs. State

¶40

of Karnataka and Others dated 03.03.2021. He also enunciated his submission by emphasizing Para 6(a) of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013.

¶41

The learned Senior counsel would also vehemence his submission by relying the judgment of this Court in Smt.Veena H.S vs. State of Karnataka and Others passed in W.P.No.24786/2023 and connected matters dated 22.01.2024, wherein this Court has held that, reasons for each of the Officers transfer is not required in case of general transfer, which is made in bulk, when the Chief Minister has given his prior approval. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in holding that the Transfer order dated 27.09.2023 has passed without there being any sufficient reasons recorded by the Chief Minister and the same is against the law laid down in the case of Rajashekar M., vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine KAR 3777 and other cases.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶43

Learned Senior counsel also submits that, it is a settled position of law that a Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or other and he is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigency from one place to other. The said proposition is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in ( 2009) 15 SCC 178. The learned Senior counsel further submit that the third respondent has already completed her 4 years of service, as such, she has no right to continue in the said post by facing departmental enquiry. Accordingly, the learned Senior counsel prays to set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶44

7 . Per contra , learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that, the Tribunal has rightly set-aside the impugned notification dated 27.09.2023 in respect of the petitioner and the third respondent since the subject matter of transfer of Government servant is governed by the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013 and the minimum tenure of stay at a place of Group 'C' Officials is 4 years. Admittedly, the third respondent has not completed her 4 years of term as on the

¶45

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶46

date of the impugned Transfer Notification. Further, the first respondent has not assigned any reason for the said transfer as per Clause 9(a)(iii) of the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2023. According to the learned counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court held in catena of judgments with regard to premature transfer that not only requires prior approval of the Chief Minister but also the Competent Authority to record the reasons as to how the case could fall under any circumstance to warrant premature transfer of the Government servant and the said reasons have to be placed before the Chief Minister to obtain his prior approval as mandated in Para No.9(b) of the Government Order and after perusal of the reasons, if the Chief Minister is satisfied that the case would fall under the circumstances narrated in Para No.9(a)(i) to (viii), then only the Chief Minister may give his prior approval for premature transfer. Applying the said principle and guidelines to the case on hand, the Competent Authority has not recorded any reasons to satisfy himself warranting the premature transfer of the third respondent as per the provisions of the Transfer Guidelines so also the law laid down by this Court in the case of Alla Saheb vs. State of Karnataka and Others

¶47

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶48

reported in ILR 2017 KAR 86 so also in the case of Rajashekar M's stated supra and other cases. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶49

The learned Additional Government Advocate by supporting the impugned notification would submit that, the Government has passed the Transfer Order with prior approval of the Chief Minister and the same has passed in Public Interest and Administrative Exigency. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties so also on perusal of the documents placed before us including the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:

¶51

"Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in A.No.4361/2023 suffers from any perversity and call for interference by this Court?"

¶52

The petition on hand is one that lays down the challenge to legality to the impugned Transfer Notification dated 27.09.2023. The third respondent was working as Deputy

¶53

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶54

Tahsildar, Yeshwanthpura-II Nadakacheri, Bangalore North Taluk, Bengaluru from 05.03.2020 on OOD basis. Subsequently, she was regularly transferred to the present place by Official Memorandum dated 20.11.2020. In pursuance of the same, she reported to duty on 25.11.2020. As such, as on the impugned notification dated 27.09.2023, she completed almost 4 years of her service i.e., in short of 151 days. This Court, time and again, observed in several judgments that, in a case of transfer, a strict arithmetical calculation cannot be applied for computation of minimum tenure.

¶55

Nevertheless, on perusal of the impugned notification, it is clear that the same is passed by transferring 45 officers to different places. As such, there is no material to demonstrate any malice in the said transfer by the Competent Authority. Such being the scenario, we find no much force in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the third respondent that, the third respondent has prematurely disturbed by the second respondent by transferring the petitioner to the said post for the reason that, though the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajashekar M's stated supra, held that, premature transfer of Government

¶56

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶57

Servants is permitted in the circumstances stated in Paragraph 9(a)(i) to (viii) of Government Order dated 07.06.2013 with the prior approval of the Chief Minister, but it requires the Competent Authority to record the reasons as to how the case would fall under any of those circumstances to warrant premature transfer of a Government Servant and the said reasons have to be placed before the Chief Minister to obtain his prior approval as mandated in Paragraph 9(b) of the said Government Order and that after perusal of the reasons, if the Chief Minister is satisfied that the case would fall under the circumstances narrated in Paragraph 9(a)(i) to (viii), then only the Chief Minister may give his prior approval for premature transfer.

¶58

As discussed supra , the transfer of the petitioner and the third respondent has notified in a bulk transfer notification of 45 Officials. This Court in the case of Veena H.S referred supra held in paragraph No.9 as under:

¶59

"9. In the second limb of the argument, learned Senior counsels for the petitioners contend that the impugned Transfer Notification is passed without obtaining the prior-approval of the Chief

¶60

12 -

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶62

Minister. In reply to the contention urged, learned AAG has placed the Government records before this Hon'ble Court and we find that there is a priorapproval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister before passing the impugned Transfer Notification in case of the all the petitioners and respondents in W.P.Nos.23836/2023, 24175/2023, 24309/2023 and 24626/2023. In case of the petitioner in W.P.No.24786/2023, learned Senior counsel has vehemently contended that, the name of the petitioner has been added post obtaining priorapproval of the Chief minister by a subsequent note/Tippani. On perusal of the records pertaining to the petitioner is concerned we find that, before the file was put up for consideration before Chief Minister, it was already noted that the respondent No.3 is proposed to be transferred to the place of the petitioner. Hence, when the name of the petitioner has already found place in the impugned Transfer Notification, it cannot be presumed that the Chief Minister has signed the document without knowing the details of it. Accordingly, further proceedings in the records clearly depicts that, the transfers of the petitioner was made pursuant to prior-approval accorded by the Chief Minister. Moreover, at the cost of repetition, we find it relevant to mention that, when an order of transfer is made in bulk, it cannot be said that the department is mandated to place

¶63

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶64

detailed reasons for transfer of each and every public servant provided, the same shall be forthcoming when read in conjecture with their service records. Hence, we are not in congruence with the contention put forth by the petitioners."

¶65

Admittedly, the Government has obtained prior permission of the Chief Minister and reasons stated thereon that Public and Administrative exigency. In such circumstance, we are of the view that as laid down by this Court in the above case, Rule 9 of the Transfer Guidelines cannot be read in isolation of the Transfer Guidelines, 2013 as the same has to be read in conjecture with the very principles and objects of the transfer. Hence, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by the third respondent that the transfer is premature one.

¶66

Additionally, the third respondent has acted upon the impugned order dated 27.09.2023 and reported to duty to Audit Section, Department of Revenue on 05.10.2023 and the same is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the third respondent. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the principle of acquiescence

¶67

14 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶69

would apply against the third respondent, who has reported to duty without demur.

¶70

On perusal of Annexure-F to this writ petition, the third respondent has not only facing departmental enquiry, but also a criminal case which is pending for adjudication. Such being the case, she cannot hold an executive post as prescribed under the Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013. However, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.104846/2022 in the case of Dr.Patil Shashi vs. State of Karnataka and Others held that, merely because certain complaints have been received against an Officer of the Government, that itself cannot be a ground to transfer him. On careful reading, the same does not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶71

16 . Per contr a, this Court in the case of

¶72

Sri.N.Venaktesh vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.23998/2023 held in Para No.13 as under:

¶73

"13. Moreover, we also find pendency of departmental proceedings as against the petitioner as

¶74

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶75

per Government Order dated 16.11.2022 vis, Annexure-R2 to the interim application filed by the respondent No.2 and if looked into from the angle of Rule 5(6) of the Rules 2015, then the reasons assigned in the impugned Transfer Notification, in our considered opinion is very much justifiable and valid and the Tribunal has rightly considered the material placed before it."

¶76

Hence, considering the case on hand, collocated with the orders passed by this Court in the cases of Smt.Veena supra and Sri.N.Venaktesh supra so also the fact that the third respondent almost completed her 4 years of tenure, we are of the view that, the order passed by the Tribunal requires to be interfered since the Tribunal, without delving in detail with the case, has hurriedly passed the impugned order by allowing the application filed by the third respondent and thereby, quashed the Notification dated 07.09.2023 in respect of the petitioner and the third respondent are concerned.

¶77

Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶78

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:12522-DB WP No. 6402 of 2024

¶79

ORDER

¶80

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶81

ii. The impugned order dated 16.02.2024 in A.No.4361/2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is hereby set-aside;

¶82

iii. The impugned orders of transfer dated 27.09.2023 passed by the first respondent is confirmed insofar as the petitioner and third respondent are concerned.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

HKV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Smt Savitha J v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Savitha J 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 S Lokesh Prabhu Vs Smt Chandramma

Sri Ajay Kumar Munugala Vs Smt. Soumya Munugala

M/S Shetty'S Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Managing Director

P. Jayaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Sharadhamma Vs Sri.Rajkumar Khatri

Sri Ramappa Rathod Vs the State of Karnataka