Sri Girish K Vs the Director

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1895 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI GIRISH K S/O KUMARAPPA. S, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELE.) MALLADIHALLI BRANCH, BESCOM, HOLAKERE SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 531.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIRECTOR Digitally signed by (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES), MARIGANGAIAH KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, PREMAKUMARI KAVERI BHAWAN, Location: HIGH COURT OF BANGALORE 560 009. KARNATAKA

¶13

THE GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES), CORPORATE OFFICE, BESCOM, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE.) O AND M CIRCLE, BESCOM, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M SUB-DIVISION, HOLALKERE, BESCOM, CHITRADURGA 577 526.

¶17

SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR.S FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELE.), 66/11 KV SUB-STATION, KPTCL, RAMAGIRI, TL AND SS DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 539.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. A CHANDRACHUD, ADV. FOR R1 TO 4 SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADV. FOR R5)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 BEARING NO. BESCOM/BC31/4098/2024-25/900 VIDE ANNX-H PASSED BY R-2 AUTHORITY AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner, working as Junior Engineer (Ele.) at BESCOM is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning Annexure-H/ Communication from the 2^nd respondent to 3^rd respondent dated 21.01.2025 wherein the second respondent directed to continue 5^th respondent as Junior Engineer (Ele.) at

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶26

Malladihalli Division, BESCOM, Holalkere Sub-Division, Chitradurga District.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, working as Junior Engineer (Ele.) at 66/11 KV, V.V. Center, KPTCL Ramagiri was deputed to work at Malladihalli Branch, Holalkere sub-Division, Chitradurga, for a period of one year under Annexure-A dated 07.01.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner reported to duty at the deputed place on 08.01.2025. It is the grievance of

¶28

the petitioner that within another 15 days, under Annexure-H, 2^nd respondent directed the 3^rd respondent to continue 5^th respondent at Malladihalli Division. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.2/2025 for amendment to include prayer and interim prayer, challenging the O.M. bearing No.zÁ/D.EA(«)G¯É¤/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉD/¹-5/2024-25 dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure-J) whereunder, the order of deputation of the petitioner for a period of one year is withdrawn and petitioner and respondent No.5 are continued at the places where they were working earlier

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶31

i.e. at Ramagiri and Malladihalli divison, respectively.

¶32

Questioning the said communication to cancel the said deputation and also O.M. dated 23.01.2025 whereunder the deputation of petitioner and respondent No.5 is cancelled, petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶33

Heard learned counsel Sri.Virupakshaiah P.H. for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.A.Chandrachud for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and learned counsel Sri.Shashidhara R., for respondent No.5. Perused the entire writ petition papers and also original records relating to the impugned communication produced by learned counsel for respondent Sri.A.Chandrachud.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have completed their tenure in their respective places at Ramagiri and Malladihalli. Therefore, taking note of the fact that petitioner and respondent No.5 have completed their tenure, Annexure-A deputation order was passed deputing

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶36

the petitioner to Malladihalli and respondent No.5 to Ramagiri. In pursuance of the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner reported to duty at the deputed place on 08.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Annexure-A/ communication or order shall be read or treated as order

¶37

of transfer and not an order of deputation. Learned counsel Sri.Virupakshaiah placing reliance on the definition of “ transfer ”, under Government Order dated 25.06.2024 submits that if there is change of headquarters to discharge the duties of another post, the same would amount to transfer. Therefore, he submits that transfer once implemented could not be cancelled and further he submits that once the order of transfer is implemented, it would no more remain for cancellation or modification. Further, learned counsel would submit that the cancellation of transfer under O.M. dated 23.01.2025 is opposed to the transfer guidelines and would amount to premature transfer i.e., petitioner is disturbed within 14

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶39

days. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.A.Chandrachud referring to the original record submits that Annexure-A/ communication to depute petitioner and respondent No.5 was initiated on the letter issued by Sri.H.Anjaneya, Ex.Minister and subsequently, he submits that the same Minister issued recommendation in favour of respondent No.5 to continue him in his earlier place at Malladihalli.

¶41

Based on the said recommendation, the order of deputation is cancelled and petitioner and respondent No.5 are continued in their original place. Learned counsel would submit that the deputation as well as cancellation are approved by the Managing Director. Further, learned counsel would submit that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have completed their tenure at respective places and as such, 3^rd respondent effected inter-change. Thus, he prays for passing appropriate order.

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶44

Learned counsel Sri.Shashidhara appearing for respondent No.5 submits that respondent No.5 has not submitted his consent for deputation as indicated in Annexure-A/ Communication. He submits that without his consent, the respondent-Authority could not have deputed respondent No.5 to Ramagiri from Malladihalli. He submits that subsequently, respondent No.5 gave representation and considering his representation, mistake committed by the authorities has been corrected by issuing Annexure-H as well as Annexure-J/O.M. dated 23.01.2025. Learned counsel would further submit that since subsequent to general transfer period, the transfer could not be effected, the respondent-BESCOM resorted to deputation which needs no approval from the Chief Minister. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶46

on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition.

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶48

Admittedly, both petitioner and respondent No.5 are

¶49

working as Junior Engineers (Ele.) in the respondentBESCOM. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 have completed their tenure of service at the place of their working. Under Annexure-A dated 07.01.2025, the Managing Director, BESCOM approved the proposal of 3^rd respondent for deputation of petitioner and respondent No.5 for a period of one year.

¶50

To a specific query of the Court to Mr.Chandrachud, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 as to whether there is any provision for deputation in the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Services (Conduct) Regulations, 1988 (for short “1988 Regulations”), learned counsel would submit that there is no specific provision for deputation of employees within the KPTCL or BESCOM. He points out delegation of powers in respect of the establishment matters at Sl.No.27 and submits that the deputation of employees to Government/other Institutions/Organizations is provided with the approval by

¶51

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶52

the Company. In the instant case, deputation of petitioner or respondent No.5 is not to Government or to other Institutions or to any other Organization, it is within the division of BESCOM. If there is no provision for deputation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not have resorted to depute the petitioner or respondent No.5 to their deputed places.

¶53

The respondent-KPTCL has adopted transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024 issued by the State Government. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, transfer is defined under the said Government Order. Definition of “ transfer ” would mean posting of a Government servant from a post to take up duties of another post from one headquarters to another headquarters or change of office within the same headquarters. The transfer guidelines also require approval of Chief Minister with the reasons to be recorded, if the transfer is subsequent to general transfer period. Since the transfer of its employees could not be effected

¶54

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶55

without the approval of the Chief Minister, the respondentBESCOM resorted to the method of deputing its employees. The transfer or deputation of petitioner and respondent No.5 in the month of January, 2025 is not permissible without the approval of Chief Minister the respondent-BESCOM resorted to deputation. Therefore, I am of the view that deputing the petitioner from Ramagiri to Malladihalli Division and respondent No.5 from Malladihalli Division to Ramagiri itself is contrary to the transfer guidelines. Moreover, for a period of one year, deputation could not have been made and when specific period is mentioned, it cannot be treated as transfer as contended. Transfer cannot be for a specified period. Transfer would be until further orders.

¶56

A perusal of the original records, it is seen that deputation proposal was based on the letter issued by one Sri.H.Anjaneya, Ex.Minister. On the basis of the said letter, 3^rd respondent/Executive Engineer submitted proposal to the Managing Director of BESCOM. The Managing Director under note dated 30.12.2024 approved

¶57

11 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶59

the deputation of petitioner and respondent No.5 which was communicated to the 3^rd respondent by letter dated 07.01.2025 of the Managing Director. Based on the said communication, O.M. dated 08.01.2025 is issued deputing the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 interchanging their headquarters. Thereafter, the same Ex.Minister who had issued recommendation letter to the petitioner also issued recommendation letter dated 10.01.2025 in favour of the 5^th respondent requesting to continue 5^th respondent at Malladihalli itself. Based on the said recommendation, again the proposal was put up and the Managing Director approved the proposal to cancel deputation on 21.01.2025. Thereafter, the impugned communication dated 21.01.2025 is issued to the 3^rd respondent and 3^rd respondent in turn issued O.M. dated 23.01.2025 canceling deputation of petitioner as well as respondent No.5. The letter/recommendation of Exminister which is on record and on which respondent Nos.1 to 4 acted upon, to say the least is not in the interest of the administration of the respondent. The said

¶60

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶61

letter/recommendation would not bind the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondents Nos.1 to 4 could not have acted upon such letter/recommendation. Transfer or deputation of employees could be only in the exigencies or in the best interest of the administration. Transfer or deputation cannot be effected for mere asking or to satisfy somebody who is unconnected to the administration of the respondent.

¶62

Both petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have brought political pressure which is on record in terms of letter dated NIL in favour of petitioner which is at page No.1 of the original record and letter dated 10.01.2025 in favour of respondent No.5 which is also on record at page No.9 of the original record. The note sheet of the record would indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 4 acted upon letter/recommendation in favour of petitioner and respondent No.5.

¶63

Regulation 18 of 1988 Regulations reads as follows:

¶64

“18. PROHIBITING BOARD EMPLOYEES FROM BRINGING POLITICAL AND OTHER INFLUENCES:

¶65

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7588 WP No. 1895 of 2025

¶66

(1) No Board employee shall bring/attempt to bring any political/official/other pressures for altering/amending any orders of transfer/ promotion/similar orders made in the interest at Board service, to further his interest.

¶67

(2) No Board employee shall adopt agitational methods for redressal of his individual grievances, without going through the recognized procedures and channels of grievance ventilation.”

¶68

In terms of the above, bringing or attempt to bring any political or any other influence upon any superior authority to further his interest would amount to misconduct. Therefore, the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 would be liable for enquiry for misconduct, as they have violated regulation 18 of 1988 Regulations. Respondent No.3/Superintendent Engineer is directed to initiate enquiry for violating regulation 18 of 1988 Regulations by mis-conducting themselves by bringing political pressure and take suitable action against the petitioner as well as respondent No.5. The respondent

¶69