Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1087 (KAR)

Narayanappa v. State of Karnataka

2019-06-04

L.NARAYANA SWAMY, R.DEVDAS

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. 1. The petitioner who was the 3rd respondent before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') is before this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 08.01.2019, passed by the Tribunal. 2. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are serving in the cadre of Senior Sub-Registrars. By notification dated 30.07.2018, the respondent State Government transferred about 122 Senior Sub-Registrars/Sub-Registrars and in the said notification, the petitioner, who was then serving as Sub-Registrar, Hesaraghatta, was transferred as Sub-Registrar, Molakalmuru, while the 3rd respondent who was serving as Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, was transferred as Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. However, by another notification dated 30.10.2018, the petitioner, who was under transfer to Molakalmuru, stood transferred to the place of the 3rd respondent, as Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. Under the same notification, the 3rd respondent was transferred from Shivajinagar, Bengaluru to Head Office, Bengaluru, to a vacant post. The 3rd respondent herein approached the Tribunal in application No.7790/2018, seeking quashment of the notification dated 30.10.2018. By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the application and quashed the order of transfer of the 3rd respondent, consequently, retaining the 3rd respondent as Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. The petitioner herein is assailing the order of the Tribunal. 3. Smt. M.V. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that the notification dated 30.07.2018, whereby 122 Sub-Registrars were sought to be transferred was found to be in excess of 4%, as provided in the transfer guidelines of 2018-19, effective from 23.06.2018. The learned Senior Counsel, while taking the Court through the file notings, submitted that the State Government having found the lacunae, was forced to re-look into the notification dated 30.07.2018. Therefore, post-facto approval was taken from the Hon’ble Chief Minister and thereafter, another list of transfer was prepared, as found at paragraph No.69 in the file notings. In the said list, the names of the petitioner herein and the 3rd respondent find a place. The petitioner who was under transfer to Molakalmuru, was sought to be transferred to Shivajinagar, Bengaluru and the 3rd respondent was sought to be transferred from Shivajinagar, Bengaluru as Senior Sub-Registrar, office of Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Bengaluru. However, at paragraph No.72, the transfer of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, as per paragraph No.69, was cancelled. However, at paragraph No.72, the transfer of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, as per paragraph No.69, was cancelled. At paragraph No.93, the proposal at paragraph No.69, with certain modification was once again put up before the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The proposal at paragraph No.93, was accepted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and consequently, the impugned notification dated 30.10.2018, was issued. 4. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore submits that the subsequent notification dated 30.10.2018, was required to be issued to bring the earlier notification dated 30.07.2018, in compliance with the restriction found in the transfer guidelines, permitting transfer, not beyond 4% of the cadre strength. In the light of the above, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the subsequent notification dated 30.10.2018, cannot be considered as premature transfer. Moreover, it is submitted that no prejudice is caused to the 3rd respondent who has been posted within Bengaluru city. 5. Per contra, Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the impugned order of transfer, transferring the 3rd respondent from Shivajinagar, Bengaluru to the Head office, Bengaluru, within a period of three months, is clearly premature and violative of the transfer guidelines. The 3rd respondent who was transferred on 30.07.2018, from Basavanagudi to Shivajinagar, reported for duty at Shivajinagar on 31.07.2018. On the other hand, the petitioner herein who was transferred from Hesaraghatta to Molakalmuru, Chitradurga, did not report for duty. It is submitted that the Tribunal was right in concluding that a Government servant who did not obey the orders, should not be rewarded for disobedience. 6. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent places reliance on the full Bench decision of this Court in Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2011) ILR(Kar) 1585, to submit that the transfer guidelines issued in exercise of powers conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, will have statutory force and are enforceable. In another decision of the Full Bench in S.N. Gangadharaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) ILR(Kar) 1955, it was held that posting of a Government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters, to take up duties of a new post would tantamount to transfer within the meaning of clause 3(d) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 (transfer guidelines). 7. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) ILR(Kar) 1955, it was held that posting of a Government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters, to take up duties of a new post would tantamount to transfer within the meaning of clause 3(d) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 (transfer guidelines). 7. The learned counsel further submitted that in a recent decision, a co-ordinate bench, in the case of Rajashekar M. Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2019) 2 KarLJ 352 (DB) has clearly held that the Chief Minister, is required to record reasons stating as to how the case would fall under any of the circumstances stated in the paragraph No.9 (a) (i) to (viii) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013 (transfer guidelines). In the light of the said decisions, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the Application filed by the 3rd respondent and quashed the order of transfer, thereby retaining the 3rd respondent as Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, as per the earlier notification dated 30.07.2018. 8. Heard Smt. M.V. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent State Government and perused the writ papers. 9. The thrust of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the second notification dated 30.10.2018 is in fact a modification of the earlier notification dated 30.07.2018 and does not amount to further transfer, requires to be considered in the light of the file notings of the State Government. If the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel is to be accepted, the State Government should have stated so, in the notification dated 30.10.2018. Even the discussion in the notings do not amplify that the subsequent notification dated 30.10.2018 was issued to remove the lacunae and bring the notification in compliance with the requirements of the guidelines which provides for transfer within 4% of the cadre strength. This argument is also not substantiated since the earlier notification transferred 122 Sub-Registrars, while the subsequent notification does not recall the previous notification or modified the same to bring the transfer order in compliance of the guidelines. 10. This argument is also not substantiated since the earlier notification transferred 122 Sub-Registrars, while the subsequent notification does not recall the previous notification or modified the same to bring the transfer order in compliance of the guidelines. 10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, before parting with this matter this Court would deem it necessary to call the attention of the State Government to the problem of transfer of Government servants and the menace of surmounting, avoidable litigations surrounding transfers. It is a welcome sign that the State Government was appraised of the ever-growing demand of Sub-Registrars for postings at Bengaluru city and a few surrounding cities and towns like, Bengaluru Rural, Ramanagara, Chikkaballapura, Kolar, Tumakuru and Mysuru. The State Government has taken note of the fact that the Sub-Registrars in Bengaluru city have succeeded in getting transfers from one place to another, within Bengaluru city. In order to tackle this problem, and put an end to such practice, the State Government proposed to transfer all Sub-Registrars who have put in more than 8 to 10 years in Bengaluru to places away from Bengaluru city. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department has said so in the notings at paragraphs No.14 to 16. However, in the notification dated 30.07.2018, where 122 Sub-Registrars were transferred, almost all the Sub-Registrars in Bengaluru city have succeeded in remaining within the city. This does not augur well for a vibrant democratic set up. It is not too difficult for the State Government to adopt a transfer policy which is transparent, affording equal opportunity and rooted to the principles of social justice. The petition stands dismissed.