Allowed

R Maruthi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2026WP/8809/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a transfer order. It held that an elected office bearer for the second term is exempt from transfer under Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines. The court quashed the transfer order due to non-application of mind and lack of specific basis regarding alleged complaints.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; impugned order and transfer order dated 22.08.2025 set aside and quashed; Respondent No.2 to be given fresh posting within one week.

R Maruthi Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 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. 8809 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

R MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O RAMANATHAPPA ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR ASST. DIRECTOR DEPT. OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA RESIDENCE AT D-31 PWD QUARTERS, BASAVANAGUDI MAIN ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADV.)

¶13

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATION VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

B DHANANJAY ASST. DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE SENIOR ASST. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATION,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

DAVANAGERE DIST. DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI R.S. SUBRAHMANYA KAUSHIK, ADV. FOR R2)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/03/2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.3832/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION NO.3832/2025 AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

Heard Sri. Vinaya Keerthi M, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. V Shivareddy, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri. R S Subrahmanya Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

The Applicant in Application No. 3832/2025 is before this Court, impugning the order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The facts briefly stated are that the applicant was posted at the present place, namely Shivamogga, on 04.07.2020. The petitioner has been elected as Executive Committee Member of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association and is nominated as the Vice-President for the District of Shivamogga, for the term 2024–2029. The petitioner was transferred from Shivamogga to Davanagere in place of respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 22.08.2025, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal.

¶33

3.1 The Tribunal, under the impugned order, proceeded to reject the application, holding that the transfer was effected with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines.

¶34

Sri. Vinaya Keerthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, having been elected as an office bearer for the period 2024–2029, is exempt from transfer under Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines. It is contended that the impugned order of transfer is contrary to the said Guidelines.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

4.1 It is further submitted that the reference to a complaint against the petitioner, as a basis for the transfer, is without any foundation. According to the learned counsel, there is no reference to any such complaint or the nature of the allegations in the file relating to the transfer. It is also contended that, in terms of Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines, the petitioner, being an office bearer, is not liable to be transferred until the completion of his tenure for the second term.

¶38

Per contra , Sri. Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, submits that a complaint was lodged on 18.05.2024, as evidenced by Annexure-R5. It is contended that, considering the seriousness of the complaint, and pursuant to the recommendation of the District In-charge Minister, the transfer has been effected with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. It is further submitted that where serious allegations are made against the petitioner, Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines would have no application.

¶39

Sri. Subrahmanya Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, submits that respondent No. 2 has been

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

transferred upon completion of his tenure at the previous place of posting. It is contended that, if the impugned order of transfer is interfered with, respondent No. 2 would be rendered without a posting.

¶44

We have considered the submissions made by leaned counsel for the parties and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶45

The petitioner has been working at the present place of posting since 04.07.2020 and has completed the minimum tenure prescribed. The petitioner was elected as an office bearer for the period 2024–2029 on 11.11.2024 and was nominated as Vice-President on 04.12.2024. Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines exempts an office bearer from transfer, and such exemption extends till the completion of the second term. The period 2024–2029, on the facts of the present case, is undoubtedly the second term of the petitioner as an office bearer.

¶46

On a plain reading of Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines, the same is applicable to the present case, and the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption from transfer. The

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Tribunal, by incorrectly construing Clause 8(5), has held that the exemption is confined only to the first term of election and is not applicable to the second term for which the petitioner has been elected. The said finding and interpretation of the Tribunal are erroneous and cannot be sustained.

¶50

The learned Additional Government Advocate, while referring to the records maintained for obtaining the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister for the transfer, invited the attention of this Court to Annexures R8, R9 and R10. It is contended that the transfer has been effected on the basis of the complaint against the petitioner, as evidenced by Annexure-R5 dated 18.05.2024.

¶51

We have perused the order sheet notings produced along with the statement of objections, as well as the original records placed for the perusal of this Court. Annexure-R10, being the order sheet maintained for obtaining approval for the transfer of the petitioner, merely refers to complaints against the petitioner. However, the said noting is not explicit, as it does not disclose either the date of the complaint or even a brief summary or contents thereof.

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Annexure-R8 is a letter issued by the District In-charge Minister, dated 31.05.2025, recommending the posting of respondent No. 2 in place of the petitioner. The same is followed by a note of the Hon’ble Chief Minister dated 08.08.2025, directing the transfer of respondent No. 2 in place of the petitioner. If Annexure-R10 is read in conjunction with Annexures R8 and R9, the reference to “complaints” in Annexure-R10 can only be understood as an attempt to give effect to the recommendations contained in Annexures R8 and R9.

¶55

If, as contended, the transfer was based on the complaint dated 18.05.2024 (Annexure-R5), there was no impediment in specifically referring to the said complaint and its contents in the order sheet. In the absence of such reference, the only inference that can be drawn is that the complaint dated 18.05.2024 was not the basis for the transfer. Notably, the first note proposing the transfer is dated 13.08.2025, whereas the complaint is dated 18.05.2024. If the complaint was indeed the basis, there was neither any necessity nor any justification for waiting until 13.08.2025 to initiate the process.

¶56

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

On the contrary, it appears that, while giving effect to the recommendations in Annexures R8 and R9, the complaint dated 18.05.2024 has been sought to be relied upon only as a pretext to justify the transfer. A perusal of Annexure-R5 further indicates that, if the complaint had indeed been treated with the seriousness now contended, it would not have culminated merely in the transfer of the petitioner; rather, it would have warranted appropriate disciplinary action. The inaction on the said complaint for over 15 months clearly suggests that it has been invoked belatedly as a basis for the transfer.

¶59

Even assuming that the complaint constituted the basis for the transfer, the approvals reflected in the order sheet demonstrate non-application of mind in the exercise of the power of transfer. A bare perusal of the order sheet reveals that, apart from a vague reference to complaints, no particulars whatsoever are forthcoming. Indeed, this Court was required to undertake a further enquiry, with the assistance of the learned Government Advocate, to ascertain the nature of the complaint, which ultimately led to reference to Annexure-R5 dated 18.05.2024.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

The Tribunal, without adverting to the aforesaid aspects, has erroneously rejected the application, merely holding that the transfer was effected with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption under Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines. Such a finding cannot be sustained.

¶64

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the transfer of the petitioner, as per Annexure–A9 dated 22.08.2025, is contrary to Clause 8(5) of the Transfer Guidelines. The approval accorded for the said transfer reflects non-application of mind, and the discretion exercised in approving the transfer is without any justifiable basis.

¶65

In the light of the above, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶68

ii) The order in Application No.3832/2025 dated 10.03.2026 is set aside.

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:17817-DB WP No. 8809 of 2026

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

iii) The order of transfer dated 22.08.2025 at Anenxure-A9 passed by respondent No.1 bearing No.KCI-VPSI/46/2025 is hereby quashed.

¶73

iv) In view of the order quashing Annexure-A9 dated 22.08.2025, the respondent No.2 is to be given fresh posting.

¶74

v) The Respondent No.1 is directed to provide posting to respondent No.2 within one week from today.

¶75

vi) Needless to observe that if the administrative exigency or any other reasons do exist, this order will not come in the way of transferring the petitioner in terms of the Transfer Guidelines.

¶76

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶77

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶78

BSV CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

R Maruthi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Maruthi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs H. Kotresh. K. a. S.

Sri Rajkumar Mulimuni Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Raveendra T Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Karnataka State Government Pharmacists Association

Smt C Lalitha K a S Vs Chief Secretary

Hanumantha Raju L Vs Narayana Shetty