Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1446 (KAR)

Basavaraj Walad v. State Of Karnataka

2013-12-27

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA, B.MANOHAR

body2013
Judgment : 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in allowing Application No.5133/2013 filed by Sri. D.A. Badami, the 3rd respondent herein and consequently, dismissing Application No.5658/2013 filed by Sri. Basavaraj Walad, petitioner herein, in the matter of their respective transfer/s and postings. For convenience, the parties would be referred to with reference to their rank in A.No.5133/2013. 2. The applicant and the 3rd respondent are in the cadre of Range Forest Officers. The applicant was working as Range Forest Officer at Goliha Mi, since 12.08.2011. By an order dated 08.08.2013, he was transferred to KBJNL, in place of B. Kanakawadi and respondent No.3, who was working in the territorial Range,. Nagaragalli, was posted to Golihalli i.e., in place of the applicant. The said order was questioned by filing A.No.5133/2013 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3. At the time of consideration of the prayer for interim relief, since it was submitted on behalf of the Government, that the transfer of the applicant was on complaints and that the respondent require some time to file reply statement, interim relief in the form of stay of the impugned order was not passed by the tribunal. The applicant was directed to report at KBJNL, subject to final decision in the application. Thus, the petitioner herein reported to the place of his posting. 4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests i.e., Respondent No.2, by subsequent order dated 31.03.2013, directed retention of D.A. Badami in Golihalli Range. Since the petitioner had reported to duty at Golihalli Range, he questioned the order dated 31.08.2013, by filing A.No.5658/2013. 5. Both the said applications having been heard together, the Tribunal having allowed A.No.5133/2013 and quashed the order of transfer dated 08.08.2013 and consequently, dismissed A.No.5658/2013 and thereby enabled D.A.Badami to take charge at Golihalli, this writ petition was filed to quash the order passed by the Tribunal, allowing A.No.5133/2013 and consequently, dismissing A.No.5658/2013 and to direct the respondents 1 and 2, to give effect to the general transfer order dated 08.08.2013, to enable him to continue in the post of RFO, Golihali: Range arid for grant of consequential releifs. 6. Sri. 6. Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar learned advocate for the petitioner contended as follows (a) At the time of general transfer for the season 2013-2014, the Conservator of Forests, Belgaum Division, made a detailed note on the need to post the applicant to another Range, as there were enquiries pending as against him and as such, it was imperative that he be transferred to a location away from Belgaum Range. In that background, the transfer order dated 08.08.2013 having been issued, the Tribunal is unjustified in arriving at the conclusion that the transfer of the applicant was not based on the complaints. (b) The impugned transfer order dated 08.08.2013 having not been stayed and the applicant having been directed to take charge at KBJNL and he having not reported and having sought transfer to Working Plan Unit at Belgaum Range, wherein also he did not report, the findings recorded by the Tribunal being perverse, the impugned order is unsustainable- (c) Respondents 1 and 2 have committed error and illegality in issuing an order dated 31.08.2013, after the petitioner had taken charge in Golihalli Range, in the absence of any interim order being passed in A.No.5133/2013. It is on account of the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner had to file A.INjo.5658/2013, which aspect has not been correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. (d) The order transferring the applicant, on 08.08.2013, having not affected his service conditions, the Tribunal is unjustified in interfering with the said order, since there was neither violation of any statutory provision nor it suffered from any malafides. 7. Sri. M. Srinivas Kumar, learned advocate for the applicant/respondent No.3 herein, on the other hand made submissions in support of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and sought dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In view of the rival contentions and the record of the writ petition, the point for consideration is, Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing A. No.5133/2013 and in dismissing A.No.5658/2013? 9. Undisputedly, transfer of the applicant/D.A. Badami, from Golihalli Range, on 08.08.2013, was premature. Along with the reply statement filed to A.No.5133/2013, proposal sent by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Belgaum seeking transfer of certain Range Forest Officers was produced. 9. Undisputedly, transfer of the applicant/D.A. Badami, from Golihalli Range, on 08.08.2013, was premature. Along with the reply statement filed to A.No.5133/2013, proposal sent by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Belgaum seeking transfer of certain Range Forest Officers was produced. As against the name of D.A. Badami, it was mentioned that there were two departmental enquiries when he was working in Chikkodi Range Kakthi Circle and it is desirable that he be transferred to out of Beigaum Division. The Tribunal has perused the file, in which, the decision to post the petitioner in place of D.A. Badami and the transfer made to KBJNL was taken and has found that nowhere in the notings there is any reference to the complaints against D.A. Badami and that the file shows that the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department having pointed out that the list containing many premature transfers and it would be difficult to defend the transfers, if challenged. The contentions advanced before the Tribunal that the transfer of D.A. Badami from Golihalli Range was on complaint having been found to be not substantiated, the Tribunal has held that the transfer of D.A. Badami was not on complaints. Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar, did not point out any material, which has not been perused and considered by the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order. 10. The transfer of D.A.Badami on 08.08.2013 was premature and also against the guidelines relating to the transfer of Government servants, vide order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001, dated 22.11.2001, held as having statutory force by the Full Bench, in the case of Chandru H.N. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2011 KAR 1585. D.A. Badami was directed to be retained in Golihalli Range, by a subsequent order dated 31.08.2013. The challenge put forth against the said order in A.No.5658/2013 having been found to be devoid of merit was dismissed, consequent to allowing of A.No.5133/2013. 11. A Government servant has no vested right to remain in a post at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. The challenge put forth against the said order in A.No.5658/2013 having been found to be devoid of merit was dismissed, consequent to allowing of A.No.5133/2013. 11. A Government servant has no vested right to remain in a post at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. A Government servant is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigency from one place to other, since transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in terms of appointment, but also implicit as an essential condition of service, in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. The Courts have not ordinarily interfered with the transfer of employee/s, unless the transfer was found to be vitiated because of violation of a statutory provision or suffering from malafides. 12. In the instant case, the Tribunal having perused the relevant record and after consideration of the rival contentions, having found that the transfer of D.A. Badami on 98.08.2013 is premature and is not based on any complaint with regard to his past service and having further found the decision taken to transfer him to be arbitrary, has allowed A.No.5133/2013 and consequently, dismissed A.No.5658/2013. 13. The petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in Golihalli Range, in view of quashing of the order of transfer, which had been issued to D.A. Badami, who was working as RFO at Golihalli Range. The order of transfer of D.A.Badami being premature i.e., in violation of the operative guidelines which the Government has laid down and thus, being arbitrary, suffering from legal malice, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the said order. The order passed by the Tribunal, being neither perverse nor illegal, we do not find any justification to entertain this writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is rejected. However, the respondents 1 and 2 shall issue a posting order to the petitioner, at the earliest and within a period of four weeks from the date, a copy of this order becomes available. No costs.