Karnataka High Court
Sri U D Krishnakumar vs The Director General And Inspector ... on 24 September, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.22550/2025 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI U.D. KRISHNAKUMAR
S/O DYAVAPPA GOWDA
AGED 53 YEARS
WORKING AS
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BDA TASK FORCE & VIGILANCE
R/AT NO.612, 3RD G CROSS
3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
BENGALURU-560029.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI VINAYAKA B VISHNU BATTA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL &
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
2
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF HOME
REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU- 560001.
3. SRI RAMAKRISHNA K.G.
AGED MAJOR
DY.SP., POLICE HEAD QUARTERS
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU- 560 001.
4. SRI HANUMANTARAYA B
AGED MAJOR
DY.SP., KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI ARAVIND REDDY H., ADV. FOR C/R3 SRI M.S. BHAGWATH, SR. ADV. FOR SRI K. SATISH, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/07/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.1347/2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 19.08.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND 3 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police is before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 22.07.2025 in Application No.1347/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short "Tribunal") rejecting his challenge to the order dated 17.04.2025, posting 3rd respondent in his place without providing any posting to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner amended the writ petition, to challenge order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-F) posting respondent No.4 in his place and posting the petitioner to CID Unit.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for the present case are that, the petitioner who was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police in first respondent 4 department and who was awaiting posting was posted to Bangalore Development Authority (for short "BDA") under order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-A2). In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner joined duty at BDA on 30.01.2024. The petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.449/2025, with a prayer to direct the respondents not to prematurely transfer the petitioner prior to completion of minimum tenure by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 18.01.2025. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure-A10). Thereafter, in pursuance of the proceedings of the Police Establishment Board dated 17.04.2025, respondent No.3 was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police to BDA in place of the petitioner, without providing any posting to the petitioner. Challenging the said order dated 17.04.2025, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in 5 Application No.1347/2025. The Tribunal, by interim order dated 21.04.2025 stayed the impugned order dated 17.04.2025. Thereafter, the matter was heard and under impugned order dated 22.07.2025, petitioner's application was dismissed, with a direction to the respondents to implement the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 and also 28.04.2025 by which, the petitioner was transferred to State Intelligence. On the same day i.e., on 22.07.2025, respondent No.4 was posted to BDA and petitioner was posted to CID. While rejecting petitioner's application, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was working in a non- executive post and tenure fixed would not apply. Further, the Tribunal observed that a government servant has no vested right to remain at the place of his choice. Questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as questioning the posting of respondent No.4 6 under order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-F), petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli for learned counsel Sri.B.Vinayak for petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.Aravind Reddy H., learned counsel for Caveator/respondent No.3 as well as learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawat for Sri.K.Sathish, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned senior counsel Sri.Ashok Haranahalli would submit that the transfer and posting of the Police Officers is to be effected by the Police Establishment Board in terms of Section 20B of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short "1963 Act"). 7
5. Learned senior counsel would submit that Section 20-B(5) of 1963 Act requires Police Establishment Board to effect transfer strictly in accordance with Section 20-F of 1963 Act and the General Transfer Guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. Referring to Section 20-F of 1963 Act, it is submitted that the Officers who are in operational duties or such other duties as may be notified by the Government, shall have minimum tenure of two years except under certain circumstances. Learned senior counsel would submit that for the officers who are in non-operational duties, no tenure is fixed under Section 20-F of 1963 Act. However, learned senior counsel would submit that in terms of Section 20-B(5) of 1963 Act, the tenure prescribed under general transfer guidelines shall be followed. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had not completed his tenure at BDA and had 8 completed only one year and three months. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner's transfer is premature and is opposed to the transfer guidelines dated 25.06.2024, whereunder the minimum tenure of two years is prescribed for Group-A and B posts.
6. It is also contended that the petitioner was prematurely transferred to accommodate respondent No.3. Learned senior counsel would also point out that the Tribunal in Application No.449/2025 dated 09.04.2025 had directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner wherein he had requested not to transfer him prematurely. Since the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 are holding Group-A post, tenure of two years as prescribed under Government order dated 25.06.2024 would be applicable and in terms of the said Government Order, transfer or repatriation of the petitioner is premature.
9
7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob would submit that under Section 20-F of 1963 Act, tenure is prescribed only to the officers who are in operational duties or such other duties as may be notified by the Government. However, he submitted that officers who are in non- operational duties are not provided with fixed tenure. It is the specific contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that when 1963 Act regulates the transfer, the transfer guidelines would have no application. Learned Additional Advocate General referring to Government order dated 25.06.2024 would submit that the guidelines would not be applicable to Government servants for whom Acts and Rules have been made separately for the purpose of regulating transfers. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner cannot complain that his transfer or repatriation is premature.
10
8. Further, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the petitioner was deputed to BDA and since there is no fixed tenure for a deputed person, he could be re-called or repatriated at any time. Moreover, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that fixing a tenure for non-operational officers in the Police department would be impractical. In that, he submits that an officer who is working at non-operational post and if his services are required in an operational post, he shall have to be transferred forthwith. In that circumstance, if tenure is provided to non-operational officers, it would adversely affect the administration and maintenance of public order or law and order. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawath for Sri.K.Satish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that at BDA, the post of Deputy 11 Superintendent of Police is a deputation post and the said post could be filled up by deputation from police department of an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in terms of the Bengaluru Development Authority Cadre and Recruitment and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1995. It is submitted that the petitioner was deputed to work at BDA and no tenure was fixed to the petitioner. On his repatriation, the petitioner is already provided posting. Learned senior counsel would submit that the posting of fourth respondent could not have been challenged before this Court without approaching the Court of first instance. It is submitted that the order of posting of the respondent No.4 was not the subject matter of the application before the Tribunal filed by the petitioner and by way of amendment of the writ petition, the present posting order of respondent No.4 is challenged. Learned senior counsel would submit 12 that the petitioner is holding the transferable post and transfer is an incidence of service. Therefore, he cannot have any grievance. Thus, learned senior counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration:
1) Whether the General Transfer Guidelines would be applicable to transfers and posting of officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and below to be effected by the Police Establishment Board?
2) Whether the General Transfer Guidelines dated 25.06.2024 would be applicable to deputation?
3) Whether the petitioner would be
entitled for the relief as claimed in the
application?
11. Reg. Point No.1:
13
Section 20-B of 1963 Act reads as follows:
"20-B. Police Establishment Board. - [(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, establish a Police Establishment Board with the Director General and Inspector General of Police as Chairman and three senior police officers not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police as members to be nominated by the Government. Additional Director General of Police (Administration) shall be the Member Secretary] (2) The functions of the Police Establishment Board shall be as follows, namely:-
(a) Subject to the provisions of section 20F, it shall decide on transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
(b) It shall also make recommendation for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendents of Police after duly verifying reservation and quota prescribed for direct recruitment and promotion. For this purpose a separate register shall be maintained by Director 14 General and Inspector General of Police, as per orders or guidelines prescribed by Government from time to time.
(c) [XXX]
(d) Generally review the functioning of
the police force in the State.
(e) Perform such other functions as
may be prescribed.
(3) Subject to its control and
directions, the Police Establishment Board may authorize the Superintendent of Police to effect transfers of Group C and D officials within the district and the Inspector General of Police within the Range.
(4) The Government may modify the decision of the Police Establishment Board after recording its reasons for doing so.
(5) The transfers decided and effected by the Police establishment Board shall be strictly in accordance with section 20-F and the general transfer guidelines issued by Government from time to time.15
(6) The cases pertaining to transfer of Police officers or personnel on complaints shall be considered by the Police Establishment Board and action taken in this regard shall be reported to Government.
(7) Copies of proceedings of the Police Establishment Board and the transfer orders issued thereon shall be sent to Government forthwith."
12. In terms of the above provision, the State shall constitute Police Establishment Board with the members as stated therein for the functions enumerated therein. Sub-Section (5) of Section 20-B makes it abundantly clear that the transfers decided and effected by the Police Establishment Board shall be strictly in accordance with Section 20-F and the general transfer guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. Section 20-F of 1963 Act reads as follows:
16
"20-F. Tenure of officers incharge of police stations, circle, sub-division, district and range. - (1) Subject to superannuation, the officers who are in operational duties or such other duties as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall have a minimum tenure of two years.
Provided that any such officer may be transferred by the Police Establishment Board or by the Government as the case may be from his post before the expiry of the minimum tenure consequent upon. -
(a) promotion to a higher post; or
(b) on conviction, or charges having
been framed by a court of Law in a
criminal offence; or
(c) imposition of punishment of
dismissal, removal, discharge or
compulsory retirement from
service or of reduction to a lower
rank awarded under the relevant
discipline and appeal rules; or
(d) suspension from the service in
accordance with the provisions of
the said rules; or
17
(e) incapacitation by physical or
mental illness or otherwise
becoming unable to discharge his
functions and duties; or
(f) the need to fill up a vacancy
caused by promotion, transfer or
retirement; or
(g) on request of the officer concerned
in writing:
Provided further that the Government may, transfer an officer before the expiry of his minimum tenure on account of misconduct or gross negligence or an act of moral turpitude in the opinion of the State Government.
(2) Subject to superannuation, the Additional Director General of Police, the Inspector General of Police in charge of Range who are on operational duties in the field of such other duties as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall have a minimum tenure of one year (and Superintendent of police in charge of District including Additional superintendent of police in charge of District including Additional superintendent of police who are on operational duties in the field or such other 18 duties as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall have a minimum tenure of two years.
Provided that the Government may transfer such officer within a period of one year for reasons of gross misconduct or negligence or an act of moral turpitude in the opinion of the State Government or under circumstances specified in the provisos to sub-section (1)."
The above provision prescribes tenure of police officers in operational duties or such other duties as may be notified by the Government. The tenure fixed for such officers is two years. However, Section 20-F would not fix the tenure of officers who are in non- operational duties. In terms of Sub-Section (5) of Section 20-B, transfers by Police Establishment Board shall be strictly in accordance with Section 20-F of 1963 Act and the general transfer guidelines. Section 20-F of 1963 Act prescribes a tenure of two years for officers in operational duties. Section 20-F of 1963 Act 19 does not prescribe any tenure for non-operational officers. When Section 20-F would not prescribe tenure to the non-operational officers, in terms of Sub-Section (5) of Section 20-B of 1963 Act, the Police Establishment Board shall follow general transfer guidelines issued by the Government.
13. When Section 20-B(5) and Section 20-F of 1963 Act are read conjointly, it makes it clear that transfer guidelines would be applicable to transfers effected by the Police Establishment Board. All circumstances are not contemplated under Section 20-B and Section 20-F of 1963 Act in the matter of transfers. Therefore, Section 20-B(5) of 1963 Act would state that the transfers by Police Establishment Board shall be strictly in accordance with Section 20-F of 1963 Act and the general transfer guidelines issued by the Government. The legislature has taken care to see that where the Act does not provide for a situation, 20 general transfer guidelines issued by the Government shall be followed.
14. Learned AAG also contended that the transfer guidelines as stated in the Government Order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure-R6) could not be applicable to the government servants for whom Acts/rules have been made separately for the purposes of their transfers. It is submitted that in the instant case as Section 20B and 20F statutory provisions itself regulates the transfer of Police Officers, the guidelines issued under Government Order dated 25.06.2024 would have no application. The said submission of the learned AAG is misplaced and untenable in view of sub-Section (5) of Section 20B of Act 1963. Sub- Section (5) of Section 20B makes it abundantly clear that, the Police Establishment Board shall decide and effect transfer in accordance with Section 20-F of Act 1963 and the General Transfer Guidelines. When the 21 provisions of Act itself made applicable the transfer guidelines in the matter of transfer, the contention of learned AAG cannot be countenanced.
15. In the light of the above, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
16. Reg. Point No.2:
The word "Deputation" is not defined in the KCSRs. In common parlance, deputation means assignment of an employee of one department or cadre to another department or cadre. The Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v/s INDER SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (1997)8 SCC 372 explained "Deputation" as service outside the cadre or outside the parent department.
"Deputation" is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre i.e., to say, to another department on temporary basis. Under Government 22 Order dated 07.06.2013, the Government issued general orders regulating transfer of government servants. The said Government Order defined "Deputation" which reads as follows:
"Deputation" means transfer of a
Government servant from a post in one
department to an equivalent post in another department and includes deputation to en- cadre posts/ex-cadre posts/local bodies/co- operative societies/ foreign service posts, as the case may be, as per the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977/Karnataka Civil Services Rules/Cadre and Recruitment Rules applicable as the case may be to the posts to which the Government servants are to be deputed."
17. In supersession, of the above Government Order dated 07.06.2013, revised transfer guidelines were issued under Government Order dated 25.06.2024. Thereafter, one more Government Order is issued on 12.05.2025. Under Government Order dated 23 25.06.2024 (Annexure-R6) instead of "Deputation", the Government has used the word "Deployment", which reads as follows:
"Deployment" means posting of a Government servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in an urban area.
Explanation: The cases of deployment shall not be considered as those of transfer. This also includes deployment of Government servants belonging to the Karnataka Government Secretariat Service from one department of the Secretariat to another department."
In terms of the above, meaning of "Deployment" is posting of a Government servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in an urban area. Clause (3) of the said Government Order would state that transfers/deployment shall be made by Competent Authority subject to conditions 24 stipulated in the order, mainly in the interest of public service and in a transparent manner. In other words, word "Deployment" would mean the posting of a Government servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in an urban area. It would not say whether it is within the department or whether deployment could be from one office of the department to another office of a different department. Therefore, it could be understood that the deployment could be within the same headquarters from one department to another department or outside the cadre, in an urban area, more so, when the State while laying down new transfer guidelines under the Government Order dated 25.06.2024, has not specifically defined "Deputation" unlike in its earlier Government Order dated 07.06.2013. Thus, Deputation includes transfer. 25 Transfer is defined under Rule 8 (49) of KCSRs, which reads as follows:
"8(49): "Transfer" means the movement of a Government servant from one headquarters station in which he is employed to another such station, either (a) to take up the duties of a new post, or (b) in consequence of a change of his headquarters."
A reading of the above definition of "Transfer" would mean the movement of a Government servant from one headquarters station in which he is employed to another such station, either to take up the duties of a new post or otherwise. Whereas, the present Government Order dated 25.06.2024 lays down the guidelines for transfer and defines the 'Transfer', which reads as follows:
"Transfer" means posting of a Government servant from a post to take up duties of another post from one headquarters to another headquarters or in a case where the office of a department/ field department/commissionarate 26 /directorate, other office in an existing headquarters is changed and the office shifted to another headquarters."
The above definition of "Transfer" as defined under Government Order dated 25.06.2024 would mean that posting of a Government servant from one post to take up the duties of another post from one headquarters to another headquarters or where the office of a department in the existing headquarters is changed and shifted to another headquarters.
18. A combined reading of the above would mean that unless there is a change of office or change of headquarters, transfer or deputation would not take place. Deputation is nothing but transfer; however, it would be from one department to another department.
19. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the transfer guidelines laid 27 down under the Government Order dated 25.06.2024 and subsequent Government Order dated 12.05.2015 would be applicable to cases of deputation also, subject to Rule 50 of KCSRs and relevant Government Orders issued from time to time governing deputation of Government servants.
20. In the light of the above, point No.2 is answered in the Affirmative.
21. Regarding Point No.3:-
When points No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, the question arises as to whether petitioner would be entitled for the relief as prayed for in the application as well as in the present writ petition?
22. Admittedly, the petitioner was deputed to work as Deputy Superintendent of Police to BDA under order dated 29.01.2024. Under impugned order dated 28 17.04.2024, respondent No.3 was posted in place of petitioner, without providing any posting to the petitioner. Though interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner by the Tribunal in Application No.1347/2025, subsequent to dismissal of the application by the Tribunal, respondent No.4 was posted to BDA on 22.07.2025 and respondent No.4 reported to duty on 23.07.2025. It is also seen that the petitioner is given re-posting to State CID under order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-F). As the petitioner is already relieved from BDA and 4th respondent has reported to duty, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-F) was not the subject matter of application before the Tribunal.
29
23. In the light of the above, point No.3 is answered in the negative.
24. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK/NC CT: bms