Karnataka High Court
Sri. Munianjinappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2013
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
WRIT PETITION NO.8240/2013(S-KAT)
BETWEEN :
Sri.Munianjinappa,
S/o.Muniyappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Executive Engineer,
Now under order of Transfer,
R/o.No.26, 8th Cross,
Vidyapeetha Main Road,
Fort, Kengeri,
Bangalore - 560 060. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri.Subramanya Jois, Sr. Adv. &
Sri.Ranganatha S.Jois, Adv.)
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka,
Reptd. By its
Principal Secretary to
Government, Public Works,
Ports & Inland Water,
Transport Department,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Sri.Venkatachalaiah,
S/o.late Thimmaiah,
Aged about 51 years,
-2-
Executive Engineer,
PWD Division, Kolar,
Kolar District. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S.V.Narasimhan, Adv. for
Sri.M.Madhusudan, Adv.
Smt.S.Susheela, AGA for R1)
. . . .
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
the impugned order of KAT dated 06.02.2013, in
application No.816/13, vide Annexure `A' insofar as the
petitioner and the R2 are concerned as arbitrary,
unsustainable and contrary to law and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal setting-aside the order of transfer dated 01.02.2013 and directing that, the 2nd respondent to this writ petition shall be continued as Executive Engineer, PWD Division, Kolar until his transfer becomes necessary in the interest of public service and as per the transfer guidelines. -3-
2. This is the third round of litigation. This Court, by order dated 11th December 2012 in W.P.No.49289/2012 directed the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein to give their detailed representation to the concerned authorities within ten days from that day and also directed the concerned authorities to receive the same and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the Government Order dated 22.11.2001 and without being influenced by the order passed by the Tribunal. After such order, the authorities considered the said representation and have passed the impugned order transferring the petitioner herein to the place of 2nd respondent as per Annexure `A9'. On the very same day, the 2nd respondent handed over charge to the petitioner, who took charge as per Annexure `R9'. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent preferred a petition before the Tribunal challenging the said order of transfer on the ground firstly that it is in contravention of the Government order dated 22.11.2001 and it is premature, secondly when a transfer is made on a complaint, it amounts to -4- punishment and absolutely, no reasons are given why such a transfer is made, except saying that it is on a complaint. The Tribunal heard the matter and was of the view that as per the transfer guidelines in the Government Order dated 22.11.2001, the premature transfer of a Government Servant is permitted, if the transfer is in the interest of public service. Transfer of a Government servant on account of a complaint against him amounts to transfer in the interest of public service only when that complaint is verified and the authority concerned has prima facie concluded that there is an iota of substance in the allegation and that transfer of the Government Servant is necessary, otherwise, transfer effected merely because a complaint has been received, does not amount to a transfer in the interest of public service. After looking into the records of the proceedings by the CMA, it was of the view that the applicant has been transferred prematurely without assigning proper reason and therefore, the said order requires to be set-aside. Accordingly, set-aside the -5- order and issued consequential directions. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Sri.Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order contended that when a direction was issued by this Court on an earlier occasion to consider the representations, setting-out the complaints against the 2nd respondent herein, the authorities, on considering the same, have passed the impugned order. It is not the law that authority has to assign reasons and then transfer. Therefore, he submits the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on that ground.
4. We do not see any merit in this submission. The authority need not assign any reason like a judicial order but on a mere complaint also, a premature transfer cannot be made in contravention of the Government order dated 22.11.2001. When a transfer is made on a complaint, it amounts to punishment. In the normal course, without holding an enquiry and without the allegations in the complaint being -6- established, no order can be passed. If a transfer is to be made on the basis of a complaint and in particular as in this case, when a direction was given to present a representation and the authorities to consider the representation before passing an order, there must be some material on record to show that the authorities have applied their mind and were satisfied prima facie that there was substance in the allegations and continuance of such official, would obviously affect public interest. Such an exercise is not done, as is clear from the order. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in setting-aside the order, which is illegal and issuing of consequential directions.
5. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the Governmental authorities seem to think that they are above law. The laws which they have made, according to them, do not apply to them. It applies only to others and in spite of the directions issued by this Court, neither they have respect on the order of this Court, nor guidelines, nor circulars and use their power in whimsical manner. In order to curb the same and in -7- public interest, to uphold the rule of law, such directions are necessary. No merit in the petition.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS