Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 868 (KAR)

P. Dinesh v. C. Mahadevaiah And Others

2020-05-13

B.V.NAGARATHNA, M.G.UMA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed by respondent No.3 in Application No.1377/2020, which was disposed of by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for the sake of convenience) on 19/03/2020. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 3. Respondent No.3 herein had filed an application assailing the order of transfer dated 05/03/2020 under which he was transferred from the post of Tahsildar-I, Anekal to Tumakuru, a copy of which is produced at Annexure A6 to the writ petition. By the impugned order dated 19/03/2020, the Tribunal has set aside the said order of transfer and allowed the application. Being aggrieved, respondent No.3 before the Tribunal has filed this petition. 4. We have heard learned senior counsel Sri.P.S.Rajagopal for the petitioner/respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, learned senior counsel Sri. Udaya Holla for respondent No.1 herein/applicant before the Tribunal and Additional Advocate General along with learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and perused the material on record. 5. At the outset, it would be necessary to extract the order of Tribunal, a copy of which is produced at Annexure A6. The same reads as under: 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner drew our attention to the order of transfer dated 05/03/2020 and contended that there were as many as eight reasons stated therein, which were all valid reasons for transferring the applicant from his post as Tahsildar Grade-I, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District to the post of Tahsildar (Election), Tumakuru, and in his place, respondent No.3/petitioner herein being appointed. He contended that although, initially the Tribunal had allowed Application No.6015/2019 by order dated 11/12/2019, wherein the very same applicant had assailed the earlier order of transfer dated 05/10/2019 and the said order was not challenged either by the petitioner herein or by the State Government, nevertheless, there were circumstances which resulted in passing of the impugned order of transfer dated 05/03/2020 (Annexure A6). He contended that a reading of the same would at once make apparent, the reasons for the transfer. But, the Tribunal has not appreciated the said aspect of the matter and instead has erroneously stated that the said order was a mala fide one. Learned senior counsel sought to submit that the service record of the applicant is not clean. He contended that a reading of the same would at once make apparent, the reasons for the transfer. But, the Tribunal has not appreciated the said aspect of the matter and instead has erroneously stated that the said order was a mala fide one. Learned senior counsel sought to submit that the service record of the applicant is not clean. There are several complaints against him and therefore, the State issued the impugned order of transfer dated 05/03/2020 and posted the petitioner herein and there was no reason for the applicant to be aggrieved by the said order. In the circumstances, learned senior counsel contended that the impugned order of the Tribunal may be quashed and the order of the transfer of the applicant dated 05/03/2020 be given effect to. 7. Statement of objections filed on behalf of the caveator is taken on record along with the documents. 8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3/applicant at the outset submitted that this Court, by order dated 05/11/2019, has stayed the FIR, which was registered against the applicant. That, the tenor of the order of transfer is such that mala fides is writ at large on the face of it. That the applicant is due to retire on 28/02/2021 and since he has only few more months of service, he ought not to have been disturbed, particularly when the Tribunal had already quashed the earlier order of transfer in Application No.6015/2019. That the applicant is also an office bearer of Karnataka Administrative Service Officers Association (KASOA) and having regard to the transfer guidelines at Clause 9a(vi), the applicant could not have been transferred. He also drew our attention to Clause 6b(ii) thereof to state that respondent No.3/petitioner herein is not from the Revenue Department, but from the Department of Endowments and hence he could not be on deputation in the Revenue Department and for that reason also, the impugned order of transfer was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that there is no writ petition filed by the State assailing the order of the Tribunal and that appropriate orders may be made in this writ petition. 10. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that there is no writ petition filed by the State assailing the order of the Tribunal and that appropriate orders may be made in this writ petition. 10. By way of reply, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner clarified that the applicant is not an office bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association, but an office bearer of the Karnataka Administration Service Officers Association. That the exemption of transfer is provided only to an office bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association and hence, that cannot be a reason for retention in Anekal. He contended that the impugned order of the Tribunal may be quashed. 11. We have already extracted the order of transfer dated 05/03/2020 impugned before the Tribunal and we have perused the same. At the outset, we wish to observe that despite reasons being stated in the said order of transfer, the State has not thought it fit to suspend the applicant nor initiate any proceeding against him. Further, in respect of the FIR which was filed against the applicant in W.P. No.51589/2019, this Court has granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings. That apart, we find that the impugned order of transfer dated 05/03/2020 has its genesis in the earlier order of his transfer dated 05/10/2019 inasmuch as the applicant had challenged the earlier order of transfer in Application No.6015/2019 successfully before the Tribunal, which had allowed the application by its order dated 11/12/2019 and had quashed the order of transfer dated 05/10/2019. As already noted, the said order has attained finality. It is within a few months thereafter i.e., on 05/03/2020, the impugned order of transfer has been passed against the applicant. The Tribunal has taken note of the arguments which have been advanced before it and has come to a conclusion that the impugned order was passed with a mala fide intention so as to accommodate respondent No.3 in the place of the applicant. The reasons for holding so is correct as we have already pointed out that there is a background to the impugned order of transfer at Annexure A6 inasmuch as the earlier order passed on 05/10/2019 was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 11/12/2019. The same was not assailed by the writ petitioner nor by the State. The reasons for holding so is correct as we have already pointed out that there is a background to the impugned order of transfer at Annexure A6 inasmuch as the earlier order passed on 05/10/2019 was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 11/12/2019. The same was not assailed by the writ petitioner nor by the State. Instead, within a few months, the order dated 05/03/2020 (Annexure A6) has been passed. We can compare the impugned order of transfer dated 05/03/2020 with the earlier order of transfer dated 05/10/2019 which reads as under: 12. The order dated 05/10/2019 was in public interest and administrative exigencies. That is how normally an order of transfer would read, but if the impugned order dated 05/03/2020 is read, it gives an impression as if the allegations against the applicant are already pointed and therefore, he was required to be transferred. The manner in which the impugned order of transfer has been passed clearly indicates that it is a mala fide one and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding so. Even otherwise, if there was a real need to transfer the applicant, it was not necessary that respondent No.3/petitioner herein only had to replace him in the said post. In the circumstances, we find the order impugned to be correct. We do not think that there is any necessity to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is hence dismissed.