Karnataka High Court
Smt Savitha B E vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited on 11 February, 2020
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.3281/2020 (S - TR)
BETWEEN:
SMT.SAVITHA.B.E.,
W/O RAJESH.R
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER [I]
E-CODE: 07-2879, OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF ENGINEER [GSW]
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
YCCP, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560064. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI FAYAZ SAB.B.G., ADV.)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION
LIMITED [KPCL]
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.82
SHAKTHI BHAVAN, OPPOSITE
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RECOURSES [HRD]
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
# No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR [RTPS]
SHAKTHINAGAR, RAICHUR-584170.
-2-
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER [O & M]
KARNATAKA GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
YCCP, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
YELAHANKA, BENGAKURU-560064.
5. THE GENERAL MANAGER [HR]
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
# No.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN
OPOSITE KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER [E]
KARNATAKA GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
YCCP, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [I&C]-1
RTPS, SHAKTHINAGAR
RAICHUR-584170.
8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [IC] Y
KARNATAKA GAS POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
YCCP, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 20.01.2020, STATING
THAT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER IS NOT CONSIDERED
AND QUOTED FALSE ALLEGATIONS FOR WHICH SHE IS
NOWHERE RELATED TO THE WORK ENTRUSTED HER AND
WITHOUT ADHERING TO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.No.22581/2019, WHEREIN
TRANSFERRED THE PETITIONER FROM YCCPP, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU TO YTPS, RAICHUR, WHICH IS 400 KMS AWAY
FROM THE PRESENT PLACE OF WORKING, PASSED BY THE
REPS No.1 WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTION TO HARASS THIS
PETITIONER, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH FOR THE KIND
PERUSAL AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-J AS ILLEGAL,
ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND OPPOSE TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT APPLICATION
OF MIND AND THE SAME ARE PASSED WITHOUT AUTHORITY
OF LAW.
-3-
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has assailed the order of transfer dated 20.1.2020 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Assistant Engineer (I) i.e. at present place of working - YCCP, Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner claims that she belongs to scheduled caste and successfully completed her academic course of Bachelor of Engineering. Thereafter she joined the services of the respondents as Assistant Engineer (I) on 11.11.2005 at RTPS/KPCL Wing and worked from 11.11.2005 till 11.11.2008. The petitioner was subsequently transferred on deputation to Bengaluru and worked from 11.11.2008 to 31.8.2009. Subsequently, certain transfer orders were passed. The petitioner had approached this court in -4- W.P.No.22581/2019 challenging the order of transfer dated 23.5.2019 wherein the petitioner was transferred from YCCP, Yelahanka, Bengaluru to YTPS, Raichur. The Cognate Bench of this Court disposed of the said matter along with the similar group of matters reserving liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate representation to the respondent-employer in terms of Apex Court decision in the case of B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka & others reported in AIR 1986 SC 1955. On such representation being made before the respondent-employer, the request of the petitioner has been rejected in terms of the order impugned. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction issued by this court in W.P.No.22581/2019 has not been properly considered by the respondent No.1 while passing the order impugned. No valid reasons are assigned to reject the -5- request of the petitioner to continue in the same place- YCCP, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The basis for the transfer being the false allegations are not properly redressed to, the employer has not treated the petitioner in a fair and just manner. The transfer order is highly arbitrary, illegal and thus vitiated.
4. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
5. The respondent No.1 has considered the representation of the petitioner strictly adhering to the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.22581/2019 keeping in mind the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Varadha Rao, supra. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:
"It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing -6- authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such ; transfers, cannot, but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, than is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair.
The observation that transfer is also an implied condition of service is just an observation in passing. It certainly cannot be relied upon in . support of the contention that an order of transfer ipso facto varies to the disadvantage of a Government service, any of his conditions of -7- service making the impugned order appealable under Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules.
One cannot but deprecate that frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to a Government servant and drive him to desperation. It disrupts the education of his children and leads to numerous other complications and problems and results in hardship and demoralisation. It therefore follows that the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally. But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conductive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer."-8-
6. The reasons assigned by the respondent No.1 that the poor quality of work discovered in the thermal electrical production units mainly due to dereliction of duties of the engineers who were interested to work only in the offices of Bangalore is based on the material available with the respondent and these factual aspects cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. It is made clear that the order of transfer is made in the interest of the administration and to maintain the quality of work of the respondent- Corporation. The request of the petitioner on the ill- health of the family members has been rejected in view of the substantial medical facilities available at the transferred place.
7. It is significant to note that no transfer orders are made at the request of any other employee. The overall analysis vis-a-vsis the reasons assigned by the respondent No.1 would not run contrary to the -9- parameters of transfer laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Varadha Rao, supra.
7. It is well settled legal proposition that the employee of a public undertaking has no right to claim a place of his choice. The transfer is an incidence of service. The employer is the decision making authority to transfer the employee considering the administrative exigencies, the Court should ordinarily refrain in exercising the power of writ jurisdiction relating to the order of transfer.
8. No ground is made out to interfere with the order impugned.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is provided to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondents to keep the transfer order in abeyance for 2 to 3 months till the
- 10 -
academic year of 2019-2020 comes to an end. If such a representation is made, the respondents shall consider the same and take a decision in accordance with law.
The transfer order impugned at Annexure-J is kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks to enable the respondents to take a decision in this regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr/Nc: