Disposed

Sri. Suresh Mallappa Tangolli v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2024WP/7646/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Executive Engineer nearing superannuation, challenged a transfer order before the High Court via writ petition. The KSAT had refused interim relief. The Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the challenge application within 15 days without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; KSAT directed to dispose of Application No.919/2024 within 15 days.

Sri. Suresh Mallappa Tangolli Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11975-DB WP No. 7646 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST 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. 7646 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. SURESH MALLAPPA TANGOLLI S/O. MALLAPP TANGOLLI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 10 MONTHS, (RETIRING ON 31.05.2024), EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O THE RURAL WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BANGALORE URBAN-560 070, RESIDING AT NO. 24. 17^TH MAIN, I CROSS, Digitally signed by UDUPI GARDEN, HARIKRISHNA V BTM I STAGE, Location: HIGH NEAR TVV COLLAGE, COURT OF BANGALORE-560 068. KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.M UMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11975-DB WP No. 7646 of 2024

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, S. KARIAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE-560 070.

¶19

SRI. INDRA KUMAR. G AGED ABOUT MAJOR, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (WAITING FOR POSTING), O/O THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-563 134.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V.G. BHANU PRAKASH, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOKESH M, ADOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASHING/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2024 PASSED IN A.NO-919/2024 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BANGALORE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A THE SAME IS BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSITE TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY REMIT BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH AN INTERIM ORDER AND DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION WITHIN STIPULATED TIME.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11975-DB WP No. 7646 of 2024

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the interim order passed in Application No.919/2024 dated 07.03.2024 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the KSAT'), wherein the KSAT has not granted interim order as sought by the petitioner and ordered to issue notice to the respondents.

¶27

The facts that are apposite from the record, which

¶28

are necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are as under:

¶29

The petitioner belongs to PWD Department and while he is working as an Executive Engineer Rural Water Supply Division, Zilla Panchayat, Bengaluru Urban District, a complaint has been made against him with certain allegations of causing loss to the Government in implementation of certain civil works relating to installation of bore wells. As such, respondent No.3 i.e., the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat issued the relieving order to the petitioner on 05.07.2023. Against the said order, the petitioner approached the KSAT in Application No.3069/2023 challenging the said order. The KSAT, vide order dated 10.08.2023, allowed the application filed by the petitioner and set aside the said relieving order. However,

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11975-DB WP No. 7646 of 2024

¶31

respondent No.2 once again passed the order dated 27.09.2023 repatriating the service of the petitioner to his parental Department on the very same allegation. However, the petitioner once again approached the KSAT against the said order in Application No.4422/2023 and the KSAT allowed the said application also vide order dated 24.01.2023.

¶32

Things stood thus, respondent No.2 has issued the transfer Notification dated 05.03.2024 by transferring the petitioner and respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the KSAT in Application No.919/2024 challenging the said transfer Notification. He also sought for interim prayer on various grounds.

¶33

The KSAT, after hearing the petitioner and

¶34

respondent No.4, has not granted any interim order as prayed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court

¶35

We have heard Sri.Prithveesh.M.K., learned counsel for the petitioner so also Sri V.G.Bhanu Prakash, learned AAG along with Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & Sri Satish.K, learned counsel for respondent No.4

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11975-DB WP No. 7646 of 2024

¶37

and perused the documents made available before us including the impugned order passed by the KSAT.

¶38

It is the primary contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer Notification dated 05.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is in the middle of the academic year and not in the public interest and the said order not approved by the Chief Minister. In such circumstances, the same is not sustainable under law. He also contends that the petitioner has not handed over the charge to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 has self assumed the charge at the place of the petitioner. The petitioner is going to attain superannuation on 31.05.2024 i.e., within 2 ½ months. Hence, the impugned transfer Notification is violation of the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 and the law laid down by this Court in various judgments.

¶39

7. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.4 so also learned AAG submit that there is a serious charge of causing loss to the Government in implementation of civil works relating to installation of bore wells and as such, the petitioner has relieved from the present place on 05.07.2023. More over,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:11975-DB WP No. 7646 of 2024

¶42

he transferred within Bengaluru City itself. In such circumstances, no prejudice/hardship caused to the petitioner due to the transfer Notification dated 05.03.2024.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties so also considering the fact that there is only 2 ½ months left to the petitioner to attain superannuation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the KSAT to dispose of the Application No.919/2024 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶44

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri. Suresh Mallappa Tangolli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Suresh Mallappa Tangolli 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. B. Gayathri Vs the State of Karnataka

S Devaraj Vs Hosmat Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.

O.Gopalakrishna Bhat Vs Dr.Rajendra Kumar K.V.

Sri Lakshmikar Reddy Vs Sri Anil Kumar Arolikar

Mohankumar Vs B a Jagadish

State of Karnataka Vs Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka Society