Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, JJ.
Vasantkumar S/o Durgappa Sajjan alias V.D. Sajjan – Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Karnataka, Under Secretary, Department of Revenue – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 101580, 101581 of 2021
Decided On : 21-06-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226, 227 – Service Laws – Transfer Order – Quashment of – Petitioner, who has put in a long & spotless public service and who is shortly going to retire by superannuation is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order whereby the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal has negatived his challenge to the transfer order in Application petitioner has also laid a challenge to the subsequent order in companion Application whereby the private respondent Mr. Mohammed Zubair, the Registrar of a University has been granted additional charge of the post to which petitioner was transferred.
Finding of the Court:
Rulings that are structured on a different legal regime as is the case herein, cannot be much banked upon in support of the propositions that are pressed into service by the respondents – Act of the State Government in again transferring him to some other place within two days of transfer and one day of assumption of charge at the transferred place falls short of professed fairness standards and therefore is liable to voided; our Constitution enjoins the State Government & its Agencies to conduct themselves as Model Employer; this duty appears to have been lost sight of by the quarters that be. – Not obeying the transfer order issued by the employer is a misconduct and dismissal from service on that ground is justifiable; what fault one can lay at the threshold of an employee whose conduct is consistent with the law declared, is difficult to discern from the case at hands; no binding rule is cited to the effect that reporting for duty at transferred place without a Movement Order is a misconduct law and therefore, assumption of charge itself becomes illegal or cannot be taken note of. – Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the Tribunal's order made in Application; a Writ of Certiorari also issues quashing the transfer notifications.
Result : Writ Petition Succeed
ORDER :
1. Petitioner, who has put in a long and spotless public service and who is shortly going to retire by superannuation on 30.04.2022, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure-C) whereby the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’) has negatived his challenge to the transfer order dated 08.01.2021 (Annexure-A3) in Application No. 10044/2021; petitioner has also laid a challenge to the subsequent order dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure-A7) in companion Application No. 10120/2021 whereby the private respondent Mr. Mohammed Zubair, the Registrar of a University has been granted additional charge of the post to which petitioner was transferred.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-State and its Officials are represented by learned Government Advocate; the respondent Mr. Mohammed Zubair is represented by the private counsel.
3. Brief facts:
(b) Within two days of issuance of the above Transfer Order and within one day of assumption of charge by the petitioner, he was transferred as Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation vide Notification dated 08.01.2021; petitioner filed Application No. 10044/2021 challenging this; subsequently, Government made one more order on 21.01.2021 whereby the private respondent Mr. Mohammed Zubair the Registrar of a University was given additional charge of petitioner’s post; therefore, he filed Application No. 10120/2021 impugning the same; the challenge is founded inter-alia on the grounds of cutting short the minimum retention period, violation of service condition, arbitrariness and legal mala-fide and his proximity to retirement.
(c) The Government and the private respondent resisted the above Applications contending that the second transfer order is only a modification of the posting order; after all, modification is done within two days and thus, there is no prejudice; in any event, transfer is not a condition of service and therefore, an employee cannot have grievance against the same; it is for the government to decide where to deploy its personnel and therefore, petitioner’s challenge is unworthy of consideration.
(d) The Tribunal denied relief to the petitioner mainly for the reason that: transfer is not a condition of service; after all, transfer is made within a short period of two days and therefore, there is no prejudice; it is the prerogative of the Government to transfer and deploy its employees in its wisdom; petitioner assumed charge in the transferred place without a Movement Order; the Tribunal having dismissed both the Applications, petitioner has presented a set of two writ petitions.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
