SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Kar) 176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
G.NARENDAR, M.NAGAPRASANNA, JJ.
Sri Prem Singh S/o Bhikku Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No.212920 of 2020 (S-KAT)
Decided on : 28-02-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Ravi B.Patil & Sri M.S.Bhagwath & Sri Pruthveesh M.N. Advocates
For the Respondent:Sri I.Taranath Poojari, Sri D.L.Jagadeesh, Sri Krupa Sagar Patil & Sri B.R.Patil, Advocates

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer and posting of government officers should adhere to guidelines and should not be influenced by political interference.

Headnote:

Transfer and Posting - Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal - Karnataka Civil Service Rules - Rule 32 - Summary Suspension of Transfer and Posting - Violation of Guidelines - Political Interference - [TRANSFER AND POSTING] - [KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL] - [Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules] - [The court held that the transfer and posting of the petitioner was kept in abeyance without any reason, contrary to the guidelines, and suffered from want of bonafides. The court also found that the transfer and posting of both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were vitiated by political interference, and directed the 1st respondent not to post either of the two officers to the post of Superintendent Engineer, PWD Circle, Kalaburagi.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, was placed on independent charge as a Superintending Engineer, and posted to replace the 2nd respondent. However, the posting was kept in abeyance, leading to a legal challenge. The Tribunal dismissed the application, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suspension of the petitioner's transfer and posting lacked reasons and was contrary to guidelines. It also determined that both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent's transfer and posting were influenced by political interference, directing the 1st respondent not to post either officer to the disputed position.

Issues: 1. Whether the suspension of the petitioner's transfer and posting was contrary to guidelines and vitiated by malafides? 2. Whether the petitioner, as an officer under Rule 32 of KCSR, can be posted to a post held by a regular appointee? 3. Whether the transfer and posting of both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were vitiated by political influence?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension of the petitioner's transfer and posting lacked reasons and was contrary to guidelines. It also found that both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent's transfer and posting were influenced by political interference, leading to a direction for the 1st respondent not to post either officer to the disputed position.

Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the 1st respondent not to post either the petitioner or the 2nd respondent to the disputed position.

ORDER :

The instant writ petition assails the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short), Kalaburagi, in application No.6785 of 2019, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-applicant challenging his order of transfer and posting.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are as follows:

The petitioner and the 2nd respondent, are both employees of the Department of Public Works, Water Resources and Inland Water Transport. By a notification, dated 8.11.2019, the petitioner, who was in the cadre of Executive Engineer, was placed on independent charge under Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules, (for short ‘KCSR’), in the cadre of Superintending Engineer. The name of the petitioner was found at Sl. No.34 in the said list. The Government, while placing the petitioner on independent charge under Rule 32 of the KCSR, posted him as Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Kalaburagi, in place of the 2nd respondent.

3. On the same day, by a separate notification, the 2nd respondent, who was working as Superintending Engineer at PWD Circle, Kalaburagi, was transferred without a posting and was directed to report to the Water Resources Department. Both the above mentioned notifications had the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister.

4. On the same day, yet again, by another notification, the posting of the petitioner as Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Kalaburagi, was kept in abeyance. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in application No.6785 of 2019. The Tribunal, while entertaining the application, by way of an interim order, permitted the petitioner to report to duties. On the strength of the interim order granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner assumed charge of the post on 11.11.2019 (Annexure-A7). Finally, the Tribunal, by its order dated 20.12.2019, held that the petitioner, being an Officer under Rule 32 of KCSR, could not disturb the 2nd respondent who was the regular appointee to the post of Superintendent Engineer, and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2019, the petitioner-applicant before the Tribunal has filed the instant writ petition.

5. We have heard Sri M.S. Bhagwath for Sri Ravi B. Patil and Sri Pruthveesh M.H., learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner, Sri I. Taranath Poojari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for caveator-respondent No.2.

6. The facts that are not in dispute are that the petitioner, who is in a substantive cadre of Executive Engineer, on his independent charge arrangement under Rule 32 of KCSR was posted to the place of the 2nd respondent, namely Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Kalaburagi. On the same day, two other notifications were issued, the first notification was posting the 2nd respondent who was working as Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Kalaburagi, to go and report to the Water Resources Department and no place was shown to the 2nd respondent. Another notification, the order of posting the petitioner was kept in abeyance. The petitioner challenged the notification, insofar as it pertains to keeping his transfer and posting in abeyance, before the Tribunal in application No.6785 of 2019. The Tribunal by its order dated 9.11.2019, directed the petitioner to take charge of the post. In terms of the interim order granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner took charge of the post of Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Kalaburagi on 11.11.2019. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, dismissed the application by order dated 20.12.2019.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the notification

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top