Sri Girish K C Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI GIRISH K C S/O. CHUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE KIKKERI FARM FOOD AND BEVERAGES (FRUITS) PVT LTD, SHIVAMOGGA (W025), SHIVAMOGGA RD27, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 60B, BELADINAGALAU NILAYA, 7^TH CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 040.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWATH., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOKESH M.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:45360-DB WP No. 32509 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE, TTMC BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶19

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TTMC BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶20

SMT GOURAKKA M PATIL W/O. RAVI B PATIL, MAJOR, WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, RANGE NO 47, ELECTRONIC CITY, BUD 8, BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE 560 026.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/10/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4439/2025 (ANNEXURE-A); b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/10/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.4439/2025, IN SO FAR AS NON-GRANT OF INTERIM ORDER OF STAY AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-A).

¶24

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

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:45360-DB WP No. 32509 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶31

The petitioner has filed his application in No. 4439/2025 with the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'] calling in question the orders dated 23.07.2025 and 25.09.2025. These orders relate to the petitioner's transfer and the fourth respondent’s posting. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, while opining that the question of stay of the impugned order would not arise, has referred to the pending proceedings before this Court and has observed thus:

¶32

"The learned AGA submits that after holding counseling in accordance with rules, the applicant and 4^th respondent attended the counseling and chosen place of their choice. Therefore, the question of staying the impugned order does not arise.

¶33

The learned counsel for the applicant by referring interim order of the Hon'ble High Court

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:45360-DB WP No. 32509 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

in W.P. No. 30294/2025 (S-KAT) and connected matters vehemently argues that some of Excise Inspectors had filed applications before this Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the same on merit. Being aggrieved by the said order, they preferred the Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has granted interim order of stay on 14.10.2025.

¶38

Considering the submission made by both the parties, I find that it is just and necessary to preserve the things as it is. Hence, reporting of 4^th Respondent in place of the applicant by virtue of the impugned orders dated 23.07.2025 and 25.09.2025 is subject to the result of this application."

¶39

Sri M S Bhagwat, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal should have considered the petitioner's request for interim order in the light of the decision of this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.26103/2025 which is decided on 01.09.2025, and in this regard, the learned Senior Counsel invites this Court’s attention to paragraph-8

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:45360-DB WP No. 32509 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

of the order in the aforesaid writ petition which reads

¶44

thus:

¶45

"8. Having regard to the fact that the transfer of the petitioner was affected prior to the completion of the minimum tenure of four years, and in the absence of any justifiable reasons for premature transfer, the same is in violation of the Government Order dated 25.06.2024. The Tribunal, by taking into consideration the petitioner’s participation in the counseling process, committed an error in holding that her application had become infructuous. This Court is of the view that the transfer of the petitioner under the impugned order dated 12.05.2025 is contrary to the Government Order dated 25.06.2024. The Government Order dated 12.05.2025, reducing the period of tenure to three years, has no application to the present case, as the transfers were affected well before the said Rules came into force. In view of the foregoing, we are inclined to entertain the writ petition."

¶46

Sri Chandrasekhar L, the learned counsel for

¶47

the fourth respondent, Sri V Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45360-DB WP No. 32509 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

for the other respondents, are heard. This Court is of the view that because the petitioner is relieved and the fourth respondent has reported to duty much prior to the date of the application, no exception can

¶51

be taken with the Tribunal’s impugned order, but the Tribunal must consider the merits of the petitioner's application for final disposal in the light of the decisions of this Court that may be placed on record, including the decision in the writ petition in W.P. No. 26103/2025.

¶52

As such, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty in this regard to the petitioner and also with liberty to seek expeditious disposal of the pending application before the Tribunal.

¶53

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶54

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶55

AN/-

Sri Girish K C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Girish K C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gorakanth Chanshetty Vs the Principal Secretary

M/S the Hamlet, Vs the Income Tax Officer Ward - 6(2)(4)

Sri Krishna Kumar Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Smt Lathadevi T C Vs State of Karnataka

Jyothi Vs Sudarshan

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Rathnakara Narayana