Smt. Nalina G S Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

SMT. NALINA G S W/O SUNIL KUMAR S. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT INTERNAL AUDIT WORK UNIT, BESCOM DAVANAGERE TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. R/AT C/O SUNIL KUMAR S. NO.1699/68, 5^TH CROSS BIET COLLEGE ROAD SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT VTC: DAVANAGERE- 577004.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION AND HR), K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

ACCOUNT OFFICER (INTERNAL AUDIT) COMMERCE, ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION, BESCOM DAVANAGERE- 577004.

¶17

M.R. JAYAPRAKASH S/O. NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS SENIOR ASSISTANT ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION, BESCOM, DAVANAGERE- 577004.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. LIKITH R.P.., ADV.)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 30.06.2025 BEARING NO. BEARING NO.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/214 VIDE ANNX-F IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER AND R-3 ARE CONCERNED PERUSE TO QUASH THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, MALAFIDE AND IN GROSS VIOLATION OF TRANSFER POLICY AND ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

3 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following prayer:

¶28

"a) Call for the records relating to the impugned Official Memorandum dated: 30.06.2025 bearing No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/214 vide Annexure-F in so far as petitioner and 3^rd respondent are concerned peruse to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, malafide and in gross violation of transfer policy and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

¶29

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to continue the petitioner as Senior Assistant in Internal Audit Branch at BESCOM, Davanagere till her completion of tenure and

¶30

c) Pass such other writ, directions or orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and expedient in the circumstances of the case including and award of costs."

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

¶34

The petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No.2 requesting to transfer to the vacant place of one Allabhakshi.A on 16.06.2025. Respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 16.06.2025 to the Chief Engineer to regularise the petitioner in the place of one Allabhakshi.A. Respondent No.2 again addressed a letter in similar communication to respondent No.1 to regularise the petitioner in the place of one Allabhakshi.A. It is contented that the petitioner is a Group-C employee of BESCOM Department and she was working as Senior Assistant, Internal Audit Branch at BESCOM, Davanagere, and she was transferred to the vacant place at Sl.No.17 due to the death of Allabhakshi.A. On transfer order dated 30.06.2025, it is contented that respondent No.1 on the same day has issued an official memorandum regarding transfer of the petitioner and other co-workers. The petitioner was transferred to the place of one Sri

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

M.R.Jayaprakash (Sl.No.1) as per the Official Memorandum of respondent No.1. The petitioner addressed a letter on 02.07.2025 to respondent No.2 stating that she was reporting to the duty at Internal Audit Branch, Davanagere as per the order bearing No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/211 dated 30.06.2025, passed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has forwarded a letter to the Executive Engineer, Commerce, Establishment and Maintenance Division, BESCOM with

¶38

regard to the duty reported by the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the subsequent order of transfer in Official Memorandum No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/214 vide Annexure-F issued by respondent No.1, has filed this writ petition.

¶39

Respondent No.3 filed the statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is contended that the order of transfer vide Annexure-A was passed by respondent No.1-

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Authority. In the interest of the respondent, it is denied that the transfer order is in violation of transfer guidelines. It is contented that the petitioner was posted to the same campus in a different department. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶44

also the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the impugned order of transfer is an abuse of transfer policy. He submit that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of transfer Government policy. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶46

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submit that respondent No.1 has issued an Official Memorandum bearing No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/211, transferring the petitioner and respondent No.3. On the

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

very same day, respondent No.1 issued another Official Memorandum No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/214, wherein it is contented that there was a mistake in issuing Official Memorandum No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/211, and immediately after coming to know about the mistake on the very same day, respondent No.1 issued another impugned official memorandum No.BVK/BC31/4098/202526/214. He submits that the impugned official memorandum is in accordance with the transfer guidelines. There is no malafideness on the part of respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned order of transfer. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶50

Perused the records and considered the

¶51

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶52

There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.3 are working in the BESCOM. The petitioner made a request to respondent No.2 to transfer

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

the petitioner to the vacant place of one Allabhakshi.A. Respondent No.2 addressed the communication dated 16.06.2025 and 27.06.2025 to the Chief Engineer and respondent No.1 to regularise the petitioner in place of one Allabhakshi.A. Respondent No.1 passed its official memorandum dated 30.06.2025 in order bearing No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/211. Immediately, on the same day, respondent No.1 has passed another official memorandum bearing No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/214.

¶56

The official memorandum bearing No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/211, which discloses that the petitioner was posted to work as a Senior Assistant, Internal Audit. Respondent No.1 issued another official memorandum on the same day in official memorandum bearing No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/214 modifying the order dated 30.06.2025 passed in order bearing No.BVK/BC31/4098/2025-26/214 and posted the petitioner to work as a Senior Assistant, O&M Division Office, BESCOM, Davanagere in place of respondent no. 3

¶57

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

at serial No.1. Respondent No.3 was posted to work as a Senior Assistant, Internal Audit, Work Unit, BESCOM, Davanagere to the post which fell vacant due to the death of Allabhakshi.A. In terms of the order dated 30.06.2025 vide Annexure-F, respondent No.3 was relieved from the

¶60

duty as a Senior Assistant Division Office, BESCOM, Davanagere on 09.07.2025 and reported to the transfered post on 10.07.2025. From the perusal of the grounds urged in the petition, it is not the case of the petitioner that the order of transfer is a premature transfer and also no malafide is pleaded in the writ petition and it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is passed by the incompetent authority.

¶61

It is the settled law that the order of transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malafides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. The said view is

¶62

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:40085 WP No. 20281 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶65

the case of AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VERSUS RAJEEV

¶66

RATAN PANDEY reported in (2009)8 SCC 337 . The petitioner has failed to prove that the transfer order is a pass only with a malafide intention. The order of transfer passed by respondent No.1 is in accordance with law. I do not find any error in the Annexure-F. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶67