Karnataka High Court
Shivaprakash T.M vs The Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 2 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18098
WP No. 11909 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 11909 OF 2025 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPRAKASH T.M.
S/O SOMALINGAIAH T.M.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 10 MONTHS,
WORKING AS CHIEF ENGINEER (ELEC),
PROCUREMENT, CORPORATE OFFICE,
BESCOM, BANGALORE-560 009
...PETITIONER
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUVARNA LAKSHMI M.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
Digitally signed
by BANGALORE-560 009
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR),
KARNATAKA THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009
3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.R CIRCLE, BANGALORE- 560 001
4. SHRIKANTH M. SASALATTI
MAJOR BY AGE,
EARLIER WORKING AS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18098
WP No. 11909 of 2025
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELEC),
O AND M DIVISION, CESOM,
HASSAN- 573 201
NOW PROMOTED AS CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE.)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA
NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. ASHWIN G. RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT
NO.1;
SRI. N. DEVDAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.K.S.ANASUYA DEVI,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4;
NOTICE IS NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS LEADING TO THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED
ND
17.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE
IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17-04-2025 BEARING
NO. KaViPraNiNi/ PraVya/ Vya(Aa)/ B100/24/2025 (ANNEXURE-G TO
THE WRIT PETITION) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an official memorandum bearing No.ಕ ಪ /ಪ ವ /ವ (ಅ)/ 100/24/2025 dated 17.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 by which he was transferred as the Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka -3- NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 Solar Power Development Corporation Limited ('KSPDCL' for short), Bengaluru. He has also challenged an official memorandum bearing No.ಕ ಪ /ಪ ವ /ವ (ಅ)/ 100/24/2025 dated 17.04.2025 by which the respondent No.4 was posted in his place.
2. The petitioner contends that he joined the services of the respondent No.1 and is currently in the cadre of Chief Engineer (Ele.). He was posted as Chief General Manager (Procurement), Corporate Office, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) in terms of an official memorandum dated 03.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 issued a corresponding movement order dated 04.09.2024 and accordingly, the petitioner took charge of the said post on 04.09.2024. The petitioner contends that as per the transfer guidelines of the State Government which were adopted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 by an order dated 01.07.2024, he was entitled for a minimum tenure of two years in the post of Chief Engineer (Ele.), Procurement, Corporate Office, BESCOM, from the date of taking charge i.e., from 04.09.2024 to 04.09.2026. In the interregnum, the State -4- NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 Government notified the general period of transfer for the year 2024-25 commencing from 01.07.2024 to 31.07.2024. The respondent No.2 by the impugned official memorandum dated 17.04.2025, dislodged the petitioner under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules before he completed two years of service by posting the respondent No.4 in his place. By virtue of another official memorandum dated 17.04.2025, the petitioner was deputed as the Chief Executive Officer, KSPDCL. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging his transfer as well as the posting of the respondent No.4 in his place.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal for the following reasons:
i. That the petitioner had not completed the tenure of two years from the date of his transfer as per the transfer guidelines of the State Government which were adopted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. ii. The transfer of the petitioner was effected without obtaining the permission or the approval of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 the Hon'ble Chief Minister as required under the transfer guidelines.
iii. That the petitioner was deputed to the post of Chief Executive Officer on 17.04.2025 without obtaining his consent. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of Kalaburagi Bench of this Court in Sri C.B. Chikkalagi v. The State of Karnataka and others [(2020) 6 Kant LJ 564].
iv. He contends that the post of General Manager, (Procurement) was upgraded as Chief General Manager (Procurement) in terms of the order dated
04.04.2022 passed by the General Manager (Admin and HR), BESCOM and the same came into effect from the date the incumbent officer assumed charge. He contends that the petitioner did not take or assume charge and therefore, the said order is stillborn. He also contends that the petitioner is transferred from the post of Chief General Manager (Procurement), Corporate Office, BESCOM, to the post of Chief Executive Officer, KSPDCL and such -6- NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 transfer within the minimum tenure is arbitrary. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri M.J. Varun Kumar v. Sri H.T. Natesh and others (W.P. No.1383/2019 disposed off on 17.01.2019). Therefore, he contends that the impugned official memoranda are illegal and warrant interference.
4. The writ petition is opposed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who contend that the notification dated 03.09.2024 by which, the petitioner was posted on deputation as Chief General Manager (Procurement) itself mentioned that such posting was on in-charge basis, to carry on the day-to-day activities. It is contended that this in-charge arrangement was subject to various proceedings pending before this Court and was done in the administrative interest of respondent No.4, which was purely temporary and which could be withdrawn at any time without giving any prior notice. It is contended that the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the notification dated 03.09.2024 and was working as Chief General Manager (Procurement) in respondent No.3 since -7- NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 05.09.2024. It is contended that on 17.04.2025, respondent No.2 issued an Official Memorandum transferring respondent No.4 from O & M Division, Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation, Hassan to the post held by the petitioner. On the same day, respondent No.2 issued another Official Memorandum posting the petitioner as Chief Engineer, Karnataka Solar Power Development Corporation Limited (KSPDCL) on deputation. It is claimed that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the impugned Official Memorandum as he was well aware that his posting as Chief General Manager (Procurement) was on in-charge basis and was temporary in all respects. It is also contended that the transfer guidelines relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the impugned order is only an order moving the petitioner within the limits of a city and not a transfer as contended by him. Reference is also made to guideline 2(3) of the Transfer Guidelines issued by the State Government, which refers to moving an employee from one office to another within the same headquarters. It is contended that the transfer guidelines is not applicable to such movements. It is also -8- NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 contended that the posting of the petitioner on deputation as Chief Engineer of KSPDCL does not require approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It is contended that respondent No.1, ESCOMs and KSPDCL are under the administrative control of the Energy Department, Government of Karnataka and most of the officials working in KSPDCL are on deputation from respondent No.1. It is also contended that the inter se transfer and movement order of these employees on deputation are issued with the approval of the Hon'ble Minister of Energy. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs on the ground that he had a fixed tenure of two years in the post as Chief General Manager (Procurement).
5. Learned Senior counsel representing respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions.
6. A rejoinder is filed to the statement of objections contending that the notification dated 03.09.2024 is though subject to the outcome of W.A.No.414/2023, the in-charge arrangement is to only restrict the promotion granted to him and did not affect the tenure attached to it. It is contended that the transfer guidelines of the State Government is -9- NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 applicable to a movement order also. It is contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have claimed that the impugned order is a movement order and contrarily, claimed that it is an order of deputation. It is claimed that though the post of General Manager (Procurement) was upgraded as Chief General Manager (Procurement) but it was not operated as the order itself stated that it would come into effect from the date of posting of an order. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner continued as General Manager (Procurement). It is contended that the impugned order is an order of deputation and not deployment. In this regard, it is claimed that the procedure for deputation in KPTCL is that it would notify it and calls for bio- data of officers interested and depute them. It is claimed that since petitioner has not consented for deputation as Chief Engineer (KSPDCL), the impugned order is bad.
7. (i) An application (I.A.No.2/2025) was filed by respondent No.4 for vacating the order of stay granted by this Court. In the application so filed, it is contended that the petitioner was posted as General Manager (Electrical) (Procurement) vide order dated 03.03.2021. The post of General Manager (Procurement) was upgraded to Chief General
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 Manager (Procurement) vide order dated 04.04.2022. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner has held that office of the General Manager (Procurement) and as Chief General Manager (Electrical) (Procurement) from 04.04.2022 and has been in Bengaluru for more than the last four years.
(ii) It is contended that the claim of the petitioner that he took charge of the post of Chief Engineer/Chief General Manager (Procurement) only on 04.09.2024, is contrary to the material on record.
(iii) It is also claimed that the petitioner has been in service in and around Bengaluru for the last 28 years. Respondent No.4 contends that the petitioner is not transferred but is only moved from one office to another within Bengaluru, which does not amount to a transfer. It is also contended that after the upgradation of General Manager (Procurement) to Chief General Manager (Procurement), Mr. S.S. Mittare was posted as Chief General Manager (Procurement) in terms of an order dated 17.02.2023. The petitioner was also deployed as Chief Engineer (Electrical) R & D, R.T. and R & D. However, the petitioner stalled the promotion and posting of Mr. S.S. Mittare,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 and he failed to take charge of the post of R & D, Chief Engineer (Electrical), R.T. and R & D, KPTCL, Bengaluru. Therefore, respondent No.4 contends that the conduct of the petitioner does not warrant any lenience and therefore, the impugned Official Memorandum cannot be assailed by the petitioner.
8. Learned Senior counsel representing respondent No.4 reiterated the above contentions.
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4.
10. (i) The notification dated 03.09.2024 by which the petitioner was posted as Chief General Manager (Procurement) categorically indicated that it was an in-charge arrangement pending disposal of various writ petitions before this Court. This was also an administrative exercise undertaken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for smooth functioning of their activities. It was made clear that the in-charge arrangement
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 was only temporary and could be withdrawn at any time without issuing any prior notice.
(ii) The post of Chief General Manager (Procurement) is to be filled up by an officer of the Chief Engineer cadre. The petitioner who admittedly was Superintending Engineer as on 03.09.2024 was placed in-charge of the post of Chief General Manager (Procurement), which makes it more than apparent that it was only an in-charge arrangement. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he was transferred and posted as Chief General Manager (Procurement) for the first time by virtue of notification dated 03.09.2024.
(iii) The petitioner has not disputed the fact that he was posted earlier as General Manager (Electrical) (Procurement) on 03.03.2021 and continued as such. Since the petitioner has specifically claimed that though the said post was upgraded to the post of Chief General Manager (Procurement), records produced by respondent No.4 reveals that petitioner held on to the upgraded post by not reporting as Chief Engineer, R.T. and R & D and thereby stalled the posting of an officer as Chief General Manager (Procurement). Therefore, for all practical
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 purposes and as admitted by the petitioner, he continued as General Manager (Electrical) (Procurement). Under the circumstances, it can safely be held that the petitioner has continued in office as Chief General Manager (Electrical) (Procurement) from 05.03.2021 itself or atleast from 04.04.2022.
(iv) The petitioner has now been deputed as Chief Engineer, KSPDCL, Bengaluru, which does not amount to transfer in the real sense as the petitioner was moved form one office to another after he completed his minimum tenure as the General Manager (Electrical) (Procurement). Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he has an indefeasible right to continue in the post for a minimum tenure of two years from 03.09.2024. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2, the petitioner was not transferred and posted as Chief General Manager by virtue of the order dated 03.09.2024 and therefore, the petitioner cannot exploit the provisions contained in the transfer guidelines adopted by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to contend that he is entitled to continue for a minimum tenure of two years. Therefore, the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18098 WP No. 11909 of 2025 contentions urged by the petitioner in support of the writ petition do not merit consideration.
11. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.
12. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA-Para Nos.1 to 3 PMR- Para Nos.4 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18