Allowed¶66

Sri Girish K C., v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026WP/546/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Premature transfer before minimum tenure; Inspector of Excise; Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025; Rule 5(2) proviso; Rule 2(1)(e); Rule 5(3)(i) and (ii); Rule 6(5); Group-C three-year minimum tenure; transfer order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11); KSAT Application No.4439/2025 rejected 07.01.2026; Smt. Chandrakala S.B. vs. State of Karnataka; W.P. No.29579/2025 batch decided 20.02.2026; departmental enquiry; transfer to Shivamogga; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition allowed; Tribunal order set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the Tribunal's order dated 07.01.2026 in Application No.4439/2025 set aside; consequently, the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11) set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned. ¶66

Sri Girish K C., Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer of the petitioner (a Group-C Inspector of Excise) by order dated 25.09.2025, before completion of the minimum three-year tenure prescribed under the Rules, is premature and liable to be set aside in view of this Court's judgment in Smt. Chandrakala S.B. (W.P. No.29579/2025 and connected matters, decided 20.02.2026). +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The petitioner is a Group-C officer entitled to a minimum tenure of three years of service and it is undisputed that he has not completed three years of service; in view of the Rules and the judgment of this Court (Smt. Chandrakala S.B., supra), the transfer of the petitioner is premature, and accordingly the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11) is set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed; the order of the Tribunal (impugned order dated 07.01.2026 in Application No.4439/2025) is set aside, and consequently the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 is also set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶66

Key takeaways

On the Additional Advocate General's submission that the pending departmental enquiry entitled the authorities to invoke the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules for premature transfer, this Court held that the observations made in Smt. Chandrakala S.B. (supra) — including that premature transfer is permissible only under the proviso to Rule 5(2) by recording reasons — answer that submission, and that no further finding is necessary.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Division Bench: S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ.; oral order per K.V. Aravind J.), 04.03.2026 — Writ Petition No. 546 of 2026 (S-KSAT), Girish K.C., Inspector of Excise, v. State of Karnataka and others. Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 07.01.2026 rejecting Application No.4439/2025, which had challenged the petitioner's transfer from Bengaluru to Shivamogga by order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11) issued under the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025. Held: (i) the petitioner, a Group-C officer entitled to a minimum tenure of three years, had not completed three years of service; in view of the Rules and this Court's batch judgment in Smt. Chandrakala S.B. vs. State of Karnataka (W.P. No.29579/2025 and connected matters, decided 20.02.2026), the transfer was premature; (ii) the writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 was set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned; (iii) the Additional Advocate General's plea that the pending departmental enquiry justified premature transfer under the proviso to Rule 5(2) was answered by the observations in Smt. Chandrakala S.B. (supra), no further finding being necessary.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

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 R/AT NO.60B, BELADINAGALAU NILAYA, 7^TH CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 040. PH. NO. 9535246118 EMAIL - [email protected].

¶12

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADV. FOR R4)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/01/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4439/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶32

Heard learned counsel Sri Satish K., for petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Reuben Jacob along with Sri V Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Chandrashekar L., learned counsel.

¶33

The petitioner is an Inspector of Excise. He was transferred to Bengaluru by transfer order dated 06.09.2023 and took charge at Bengaluru on 08.01.2024. The State Government notified the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025 (for short, ‘the Rules’), with effect from 14.05.2025. In accordance with the Rules, a list of officers eligible for transfer was notified, and the petitioner was transferred to Shivamogga by order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11). Under the same transfer order, respondent No.4 was posted to the place of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.4439/2025. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, rejected the application.

¶37

Learned counsel Sri K. Satish appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of the decision of this Court in W.P. No.29579/2025 and connected matters (decided on 20.02.2026 in the case of Smt. Chandrakala S.B. vs. State of Karnataka and other batch of petitions), the impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that, in view of the judgment in the above-referred case, the transfer of the petitioner is premature.

¶38

Per contra, Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General, along with Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that in view of the judgment cited above, the transfer of the petitioner is premature. The learned Additional Advocate General is unable to dispute that the very same transfer order was the subject matter of the batch of writ petitions. However, the learned Additional Advocate General

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

submits that, in view of the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner, the respondent authorities are entitled to effect a premature transfer in terms of the proviso to Rule 5(2) of the Rules.

¶42

4.1. It is further submitted that pursuant to the transfer order, the petitioner was relieved on 25.09.2025 and reported for duty on 08.10.2025 at the transferred place, i.e., Shivamogga. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 has reported to the post earlier occupied by the petitioner prior to the transfer. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that if the transfer is disturbed, unintended consequences would arise. It is therefore his submission that the order of transfer be maintained.

¶43

Learned counsel Sri Chandrashekar L., appearing for respondent No.4, in line with the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that pursuant to the transfer made under the impugned order, respondent No.4 has reported for duty at Bengaluru and has served for more than six months. It is submitted that he has relocated from Bagalkot to Bengaluru and that any disturbance to the present

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

arrangement would cause hardship. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 therefore submits that his transfer, as made under the impugned transfer order, be maintained.

¶47

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed that the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 was the subject matter before this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P. No.29579/2025 and connected matters, decided on 20.02.2026. In the said judgment, it has been held that the petitioners/officers of the Excise Department are entitled to the minimum tenure as provided under the Rules.

¶48

In the present case, the petitioner is a Group-C officer entitled to a minimum tenure of three years of service. It is undisputed that the petitioner has not completed three years of service. In view of the Rules and the judgment of this Court, the transfer of the petitioner is premature. Accordingly, the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11) is set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶49

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that, in

¶52

view of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules, the petitioner is facing a departmental enquiry and his case is fit to be considered for premature transfer. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore submits that appropriate observations may be made granting liberty to invoke the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules. This Court in Smt. Chandrakala S B ( supra ) while examining Rule 5 of the Rules, has held as under:

¶53

“19. Rule 2(1)(e) of Rules 2025 as extracted above provides for minimum period of service and Group-C official/officers are provided three years minimum period of service. Under Rule 5(2) of Rules 2025, normally transfer shall not be effected unless he/she has completed the minimum years of service in that post. Therefore, unless and until an official/officer completes minimum period of service in the post held by them, transfer could not be effected other than in terms of proviso to Rule 5(2) by recording reasons for premature transfer.

¶54

20. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob referring to Rule 6(5) of Rules 2025 contended that, to rotate the officials who are

¶55

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

working for very long in executive post, the officers/officials who have completed five years of service in an executive post in Bengaluru Urban are to be transferred to districts other than Bengaluru Urban. Rule 5(3) (i) and (ii) of Rules 2025 also would make it clear that transfer of officials or officers shall be done in the order of priority taking note of the completed minimum period of service in executive or non-executive posts. On a combined reading of Rule 2(1)(e), 5(2) and 5(3)(i) and (ii) of Rules 2025, it is clear that, only on completion of minimum period of service either in executive post or non-executive post, transfer of official/officers of Excise Department could be effected. However, proviso to Rule 5(2) of Rules 2025 empowers the competent authority to effect premature transfer in

¶58

public and administrative interest by recording reasons. Admittedly, Rules 2025 came into effect under Notification dated 14.05.2025. Even to give effect to Rule 6(5) of Rules 2025, the officer/official shall complete minimum period of service as prescribed under Rule 2(1)(e) as well as Rule 5(3)(i). The service in an executive post in Bengaluru Urban could be taken into consideration when an officer/official becomes liable for transfer upon completion of minimum tenure as stated in Rule 5(2). In other words, Rule 6(5) would come into play subject to satisfaction of Rule 5(2), i.e.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB WP No. 546 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

upon completion of the minimum period of service as prescribed under Rule 2(1)(e).”

¶63

(emphasis supplied)

¶64

The observations made by this Court in the above-referred judgment answers the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General. No further finding is necessary.

¶65

In the light of the above, the writ petition is

¶66

allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 is also set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶67

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶68

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶69

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

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

Union of India Vs v. S. Patilkulkarni

Union of India Vs Sri Ganapathi Bhat Prasad

Union of India Vs K Jayasimha

Sri Shivashankaraswamy P N Vs the State of Karnataka

Union of India Vs Smt. Anthony Mary

Sri Suresha S Vs the State of Karnataka