Karnataka High Court
Sri Muhammed Zeeshan vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB
WP No. 36305 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO.36305 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI MUHAMMED ZEESHAN
S/O. H.R. MUKTHAR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
MYSURU RANGE, MYSURU DIVISION
MYSURU-570 008
AND ALSO AT
#1240, 14TH CROSS
SHANTINAGAR
MYSURU- 570 019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SAMEEKSHA T.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA
Location: High Court 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
(HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)
ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-03.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB
WP No. 36305 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
MYSURU DIVISION
MYSURU-570 008.
4. SRI KRISHNA N. MAGALAMANE
MAJOR
REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER
KARYA YOJANE GATAKA
MYSURU CITY- 570 008.
5. SRI SANTHOSH M. HOOVGAR
MAJOR
REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER
BRAMA GIRI WILDLIFE REGION
MAKUTTA, MADIKERE
WILDLIFE DIVISION- MADIKERE- 571 218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P. FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5;
VIDE ORDER DATED 11-12-2025, NOTICE TO R-4 DISPENSED WITH)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS OR ORDERS
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19-11-2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION
NO.2978 OF 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW SAID
APPLICATION NO.2978 OF 2025 BY THE ORDER DATED 30-6-2025
BEARING NO.32/2025-26 IN SERIAL NO.20 PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A1 AND ORDER DATED 30-6-2025 BEARING
NO.31/2025-26 IN SERIAL NO.89 AND 90 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-
A2 AND ORDER TO FORTHWITH REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO
CONTINUE HIS SERVICE AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER, MYSURU
RANGE.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB
WP No. 36305 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State, and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with.
2. The relief sought in the writ petition is as follows:
"1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs or orders quashing the order dated 19- 11-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.2978/2025 vide Annexure A and allow said Application No.2978/2025 by the order dated 30/06/2025 bearing No.32/2025-26 in serial No.20 produced as Annexure A1 and order dated 30/06/2025 bearing No.31/2025-26 in serial No.89 and 90 produced as Annexure A2 and order to forthwith reinstate the petitioner to continue his service as Range Forest Officer, Mysuru Range.
2. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity". -4-
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in Application No.2978/2025 vide Annexure-A. It is contend that the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the premature transfer. The Memorandum of Application is produced as Annexure-B.
4. The petitioner was working as Range Forest Officer. He was deputed to Nagarahole Wildlife Range from December 2021 to July 2024 and was thereafter transferred to Mysuru Range as per the order dated 31.07.2024 vide Annexure-A3. Within a period of 11 months, he was subjected to premature transfer as per the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 bearing No.31/2025-26, wherein no posting was given to him and he was kept in the waiting list vide Annexure-A2. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Range Forest Officer at Working Plan Unit, Mysuru, as per order dated 30.06.2025 bearing No.32/2025-26 vide Annexure-A1. The petitioner approached -5- NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR the Tribunal by filing Application No.2978/2025 challenging the premature transfer vide Annexure-B.
5. Respondent No.5 filed statements of objections vide Annexure-C seeking dismissal of the application. The statements of objections was accompanied by documents marked as Annexures R1 to R4. In view of the dismissal of the application, the present writ petition is filed.
6. The main contention urged by the writ petitioner is that the orders passed at Annexures A1 and A2 are perverse, whimsical, and issued without due application of mind. It is contend that the transfer is premature and the same is punishment to the petitioner. The petitioner had served only for 11 months at Mysuru Range and was again subjected to premature transfer on 30.06.2025, which is stated to be wholly illegal and impermissible in law and against the transfer guidelines.
7. The counsel further contend that there was a note dated 05.06.2025 from the Private Secretary to the Minister for Forest, Ecology and Environment seeking an enquiry and submission of report as to whether the petitioner was present -6- NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR during the Minister's visit. It is alleged that, without application of mind and at the instance of the Minister, the impugned orders were passed, which is contrary to the Rule of Law.
8. The counsel further contend that, as per the Minister's tour programme dated 03.06.2025, the concerned Minister was scheduled to visit Mysuru on 04.06.2025 and not on 05.06.2025. The allegation made against the petitioner that he was not present during the Minister's visit is stated to be false and baseless. In this regard, reliance is placed on the note dated 05.06.2025, which has been produced along with the memo of documents. It is also contend that the petitioner was, in fact, very much present during the Minister's visit, which is evident from the photographs produced along with the memo of documents and also contend that, the Tribunal has erroneously observed that the transfer of the petitioner from the present post is permissible under the General Transfer Guidelines, 2025 dated 12.05.2025, on the premise that there were allegations against the petitioner. The said observation is wholly incorrect, as the allegations are false and have not been -7- NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR proved. No enquiry was conducted, nor was any notice issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders.
9. It is further contend that the Controlling Officer, in his report dated 23.06.2025, has categorically stated that the petitioner was very much present during the Minister's visit and there was no negligence in adhering to protocol. It is also contend that, in the statement of objections filed by respondent No.5, it is stated that the transfer was effected on account of the petitioner having failed to follow the protocol during the Minister's visit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the General Transfer Guidelines, 2025-26 dated 12.05.2025 have been violated. Paragraph 9 of the said Guidelines mandates prior approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister before effecting any premature transfer. No such approval has been obtained in the present case, and hence the impugned order is in violation of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1978, as the petitioner had not handed over charge pursuant to the transfer order. This, according to the petitioner, clearly establishes that the transfer order was not fully implemented. It is further contend that the Tribunal committed -8- NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR an error in dismissing the application by concluding that the transfer had already been implemented, without proper application of mind. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed this Court to quash the order of transfer.
10. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would submit that statement of objections was filed before the Tribunal, and the same is adopted before this Court. It was vehemently contended before the Tribunal that the transfer order was duly passed and the same is already implemented. The petitioner has reported to the place to which he was posted, and therefore, the application had become infructuous. The said aspect has been duly noted by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
11. The learned counsel would further submit that the transfer order was passed on 30.06.2025 and the petitioner was posted within Mysuru itself. However, the petitioner did not report to duty and instead approached the Tribunal, which did not grant any interim order staying the transfer. Only after the filing of the present writ petition, and pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner reported to duty. It is -9- NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR therefore submitted that this Court ought to take note of the petitioner's conduct in the matter.
12. Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that statement of objections has been filed today and the same is brought to the notice of this Court. The counsel would contend that transfer is instant of service and not a condition of service. The grievance of the petitioner is that his transfer from the present place is premature, as he has not completed the minimum tenure of two years at Mysuru. Moreover, the present transfer does not adversely affect the petitioner and no hardship is caused to him. It is further contend that the Tribunal, after considering the issue, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, and the same is in accordance with law.
13. The counsel further contends that the transfer was effected during the general transfer process, which involved 101 employees in the Forest Department, in the interest of better administration. It is submitted that the private respondent was relieved from his post at Brahmagiri Wildlife Range, Makutta, Madikeri and was posted to Mysuru, where he
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR reported for duty on 11.08.2025. However, the petitioner did not hand over charge until 18.08.2025. The private respondent assumed charge on 18.08.2025, and the same was informed to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Mysuru, on the very same day. Thereafter, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Mysuru, relieved the petitioner after accepting the report of the private respondent, in pursuance of the transfer order and the Tribunal has taken note of these facts. It is further contend that the petitioner has not complied with the transfer order passed by the Government and he reported for duty only pursuant to the order passed by this Court. It is therefore submitted that, when the transfer order does not adversely affect the petitioner, the question of quashing the same does not arise.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, the following point arises for consideration of this Court:
"Whether the transfer order dated 30.06.2025 is in violation of the Transfer Guidelines and the same amounts to a premature transfer?"
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR
15. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, particularly with reference to Annexure-D2, it is evident that the Private Secretary to the Minister for Forest, Ecology and Environment sent a note (tippani) alleging violation of protocol. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-D1, wherein visit of the Forest Minister is scheduled at a particular place at 12:00 noon, namely Aranya Bhavan. Reference is also made to Annexure-D3, being the report dated 23.06.2025, wherein it is categorically stated that the petitioner, along with his staff, was waiting at Aranya Bhavan as per the scheduled programme.
16. It is further stated in the said report that, during the course of the visit, the Minister proceeded to Jaladarsini Guest House, and the information regarding the change in venue was communicated belatedly. Consequently, the petitioner and other staff members, who were waiting at the scheduled venue, could not reach the changed location in time. Therefore, as per Annexure-D3, there was no violation of protocol on the part of the petitioner.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-D4. The said document discloses that when the Forest Minister planted saplings, the petitioner was very much present at the spot. When such material is available on record, and particularly in view of Annexure-D3, which clearly states that there was no violation on the part of the petitioner, the allegation of protocol lapse appears unsustainable. It is also to be noted that Annexure-D1 specifically mentions the timing of the Minister's visit to Aranya Bhavan, and the material on record indicates that the petitioner was present and waiting at the said venue. No material has been placed before this Court to substantiate the alleged deviation in the Minister's programme to Jaladarshini Guest House. In the absence of any such material, the respondents cannot find fault with the petitioner.
18. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed the minimum tenure of the present posting. It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even on the earlier occasion, he was subjected to premature transfer without completing the minimum period of two years at the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR previous place of posting. In the present case as well, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has not completed the prescribed minimum tenure of two years. Though learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would defend the act of transfer, but it is not specifically contend that it is not a premature transfer.
19. It is also the contention of the State that the petitioner has been posted within Mysuru itself. However, the material on record discloses that the petitioner was shifted on the ground of the allegation that he failed to attend the protocol duties during the Minister's visit. This Court has already discussed the circumstances under which the petitioner could not be present, at the altered venue. The report dated 23.06.2025 clearly indicates that there was a deviation in the programme of the Forest Minister, who, instead of visiting the scheduled venue where the petitioner and Staff were waiting, proceeded to Jaladarshini Guest House. Despite the said report, the impugned order came to be passed on 30.06.2025 without looking into the Annexure-D3. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner, no explanation was sought from
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR him, and no enquiry was conducted before passing the transfer order. In effect, the petitioner was thrown out from the post where he was working. Such action on the part of the Government, in transferring an official without affording an opportunity and without substantiating the allegation, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and also in violation of the Transfer Guidelines.
20. No doubt, the impugned transfer order was passed in the month of June. However, the petitioner was not due for transfer at that point of time. The transfer is clearly premature and is contrary to the Transfer Policy. The attempt made by the learned HCGP to defend the act of the Government cannot be accepted that, it was a transfer made at the time of general transfer. Merely because the order was passed during the general transfer period does not alter the fact that, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it was a premature transfer. But the fact is that it was a premature transfer, that too as a punishment without any fault of the petitioner. Hence, the orders dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-A1 and A2), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR
21. The counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would submit that he has already reported to duty. However, merely because he has reported, the transfer order at Annexures A1 and A2 does not become sustainable. The same cannot be given effect to as contended by learned counsel for respondent No.5. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5 cannot be accepted.
22. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned transfer orders are not sustainable in the eye of law and the writ petition deserves to be allowed by quashing Annexures A1 and A2. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned orders at Annexures A1 and A2 dated 30.06.2025 are hereby quashed, insofar it relates to the petitioner herein.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8920-DB WP No. 36305 of 2025 HC-KAR
iii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to repost the petitioner to the post which he was holding prior to 30.06.2025, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iv) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are also directed to suitably accommodate respondent No.5 in an appropriate post, without causing any inconvenience.
v) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9