ORDER : S.G. PANDIT, J. Since both the above writ petitions are filed questioning the same order dated 03/10/2024, in Application No.4126/2024, clubbed with 4129/2024, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Both the writ petitioners are working as Senior Geologists in the Department of Mines and Geology. Thepetitioner in Writ Petition No.28046/2024 was posted as Senior Geologist, Shivamogga under notification dated 27.07.2023. Whereas the writ petitioner in W.P.No.27973/2024 was posted as Senior Geologist, Haveri under notification dated 26.07.2023. Under impugned transfer notification dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure-A5), both the petitioners were transferred and other officers were posted. Questioning the said notification of transfer, both the petitioners approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.4126/2024 and 4129/2024, respectively, among other grounds contending that the transfer is premature. 3. The Tribunal under impugned order rejected the applications mainly on the ground that the order of transfer is approved by the Chief Minister by assigning reasons and the transfer is already implemented. In case of the petitioner in Writ Petition W.P.28046/2024, the Tribunal also has observed that the enquiry against the petitioner is pending. Questioning the common order passed in both the applications, the writ petitioners are before this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Prithveesh M.K., and Sri.D.R.Ravishankar for Sri.Swaroop.S, learned counsel for respondent No.3, as well as Sri.Ravidranath.B, learned AGA for Respondent nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the transfer of the petitioners are premature, in that, they have not completed minimum tenure of two years at their posting at Shivamogga and Haveri respectively. It is submitted that the petitioners are posted to Shivamogga on 27.07.2023 and to Haveri on 26.07.2023 respectively, and as on the date of the transfer, they had only completed one year of their tenure. Further, learned counsel would submit that, though it is placed before the Tribunal that the transfer is approved by the Chief Minister, no reasons are recorded for their premature and untimely transfer. Learned counsel would also submit that the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the transfer has already been implemented, it is impermissible for the Tribunal to modify the implemented order of transfer is wholly erroneous. 6. It is submitted that the writ petitioners were before the Tribunal immediately, on issuance of the transfer notification dated 22.08.2024. Learned counsel would also submit that the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the transfer has already been implemented, it is impermissible for the Tribunal to modify the implemented order of transfer is wholly erroneous. 6. It is submitted that the writ petitioners were before the Tribunal immediately, on issuance of the transfer notification dated 22.08.2024. It is further submitted that even if the orders are implemented, it would not preclude the petitioners from approaching the legal forum and it would not preclude the Courts from examining the validity of such orders. 7. Learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh would further submit that no enquiry as noted by the Tribunal against the petitioner is pending by issuance of the charge memo. He submits that only show cause notice dated 19.08.2024, was issued that too subsequent to approval of the transfer by the Chief Minister. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the subsequent issuance of show cause notice could not be taken note of, to examine the validity of the transfer. Thus, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R.Ravi Shankar for respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.28046/2024, submits that since there were serious allegations against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.28046/2024, the respondents rightly transferred the petitioner out of Shivamogga. Further, he would submit that the reasons assigned for the transfer and for approval of the Chief Minister that the transfer is in the interest of the public and administrative exigencies, would suffice the purpose. Further, the learned Senior Counsel would refer to the Transfer Guidelines dated 25.06.2024, and submits that premature transfer is permissible with the approval of the Chief Minister. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 9. Learned AGA on the other hand, produced the original record relating to the impugned notification of transfer and the learned AGA is not in a position to point out the reasons recorded for effecting premature transfer, apart from the words ‘public interest and administrative exigency’. 10. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers including the original records relating to transfer Notification dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure-A5), the only point that arises for consideration is as to: “Whether the transfer of the writ petitioners is premature and whether the impugned order of the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court? 11. 11. We answer the above point in the affirmative for the following reasons: The petitioners who are in the cadre of Senior Geologist in the Department of Mines and Geology were posted to work as such to Shivamogga on 27.07.2023 and Haveri on 26.07.2023 respectively. Under Government Order dated 25.06.2024, which lays down guidelines to transfer, Group-A and B officers provided with minimum tenure of two years at the place of posting. Admittedly, the petitioners have not completed two years as on the date of the impugned notification of transfer dated 22.08.2024. Admittedly, the transfer of the petitioners is premature. However, the Transfer Guidelines dated 25.06.2024 permits premature transfer of Government servants under special circumstances by recording reasons for such premature transfer with the approval of the Chief Minister. In the instant case, the original record would reveal that though the transfer is with the approval of the Chief Minister, no reasons are recorded for premature transfer of the petitioners except recording the word ‘public interest and administrative exigencies’. 12. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.107224/2024, dated 12.07.2024, considered as to whether mentioning of ‘public interest and administrative exigencies’ would suffice, the purpose and at paragraph no.9 of the judgment, it has observed as follows: “12. In the instant case, though approval of Chief Minister is obtained for premature transfer, no reasons are recorded nor the impugned order indicates any allegations against the petitioner for her premature transfer. Learned Government Advocate submitted that transfer of the petitioner and posting of respondent no 5 in place of petitioner is in the interest of public and due to administrative exigencies. Though words, “in the interest of public and due to administrative exigencies” are common in all transfer orders, that common words would not be sufficient and there shall be more than that to effect premature transfer. For effecting premature transfer, reasons other than ‘in the interest of public and administrative exigencies’ are to be recorded. In the absence of any other reasons, the competent authority would not get jurisdiction to effect premature transfer. Though this court by order dated 20.12.2023 directed the Government Advocate to produce original records so as to verify that any reasons are recorded for premature transfer of the petition, however, no records are made available by the Learned Government Advocate. Learned Government Advocate has not produced any records relating to the impugned transferred order. Though this court by order dated 20.12.2023 directed the Government Advocate to produce original records so as to verify that any reasons are recorded for premature transfer of the petition, however, no records are made available by the Learned Government Advocate. Learned Government Advocate has not produced any records relating to the impugned transferred order. Hence without going into any other grounds raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that transfer of the petitioner and posting of respondent No 5 is premature and contrary to Government order dated 07.06.2013” 13. A routine noting of ‘public interest and administrative exigencies’ in the light of Clause-5(3) of Government Order dated 25.06.2024 would not be sufficient. In terms of Clause – 5(3) of Government Order dated 25.06.2024, reasons morethan ‘public interest or administrative exigencies’ would be necessary for effecting premature transfer that too with the approval of Chief Minister. 14. Learned Senior Counsel, Sri.D.R.Ravi Shankar contended there are several complaints against the writ petitioner in W.P.No.28046/2024 and he also submitted that there is also an enquiry pending against the petitioner. We have gone through the original records pertaining to transfer notification dated 22.08.2024, the record pertaining to the transfer notification neither contain any material with regard to complaint against the petitioners or pendency of enquiry against the petitioner. Without there being any material in the transfer file, the same cannot be taken note of. 15. The third respondent along with the statement of objections has placed on record, the show cause notice dated 19.08.2024 which is subsequent to approval of transfer by Chief Minister on 03.08.2024 i.e., after the transfer of the petitioner. The show-cause notice said to have been issued to the petitioner is also subsequent to the approval of the transfer by the Chief Minister. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel. 16. The Tribunal under the impugned order has observed that the order of transfer has already been implemented. As such, it is impermissible for the Tribunal to modify the impugned order. The said observation of the Tribunal is totally misplaced. The Tribunal or the Court under its ‘power of judicial review’ could examine the validity of an order, even though the said order is implemented. As such, it is impermissible for the Tribunal to modify the impugned order. The said observation of the Tribunal is totally misplaced. The Tribunal or the Court under its ‘power of judicial review’ could examine the validity of an order, even though the said order is implemented. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the order under challenge is passed in violation of law or is not within the parameters of law, would certainly possess powers to interfere with such orders. Merely because the order is implemented the Tribunal or Court cannot shut its eyes and cannot refuse to examine its validity. 17. This Court in the case of T. SUNEEL KUMAR, IPS -V/s- THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, ILR 2013 KAR 4564 at paragraph No.54 has observed as follows: "54. In the other case the Tribunal has declined to grant the relief to the petitioner on the ground that the second respondent has taken charge. Here we would like to point out that a new service jurisprudence appears to have evolved over the years in this regard. The parties, Advocates and sometimes the Judges also think in terms that if the person transferred goes to the post to which he is transferred and takes charge, then the Court's power to set-aside the order of transfer does not exist. In fact, because of this understanding recently when the Government was indiscriminately passing orders of transfer contrary to statutory provisions, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal decided not only to stay such orders but also directed that the person who is relieved of his duty should be put back, to send a message to the Government and to the officials who have managed to get these transfer orders, that though the transfer has been given effect to, charge is taken, it has no value in the eye of law. Unfortunately, the Central Administrative Tribunal seems to think that once charge is taken it loses its power to set-aside the said order. Taking of charge or not taking of charge has no effect whatsoever in deciding the validity of an order of transfer. Once the order of transfer is quashed, the parties have to be relegated to the position as they stood prior to the order of transfer. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal is unsustainable and it is liable to be set-aside." (emphasis supplied)” 18. Once the order of transfer is quashed, the parties have to be relegated to the position as they stood prior to the order of transfer. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal is unsustainable and it is liable to be set-aside." (emphasis supplied)” 18. For the reasons recorded above, both the writ petitions would succeed and accordingly, the following: ORDER: i) Writ petitions are allowed. ii) The order dated 03/10/2024, in Application No.4126/2024, clubbed with 4129/2024, is set- aside. Consequently, the impugned transfer notification dated 22.08.2024 (Anexure-A5) insofar as the petitioners and the private respondents only, in the writ petitions is quashed. iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to continue the petitioners in the said post held by them, prior to the order of transfer till they complete the tenure. However, liberty is reserved to the Government to transfer the petitioners by strictly following the Government order dated 25.06.2024.