Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, G BASAVARAJA, JJ.
Dr. Patil Shashi D/o Channabasanagouda Patil – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No.104846 of 2022 (S-KAT)
Decided on : 15-12-2022
Transfer - Premature Transfer of Government Servant - Violation of Transfer Guidelines - Complaint against Government Officer - Transfer not a remedy - Writ Petition Dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a doctor, was transferred to the post of District Health and Family Welfare Officer, replacing respondent No.4. The transfer was challenged by respondent No.4, who contended that the transfer was premature and contrary to the minimum tenure fixed in the transfer guidelines. The petitioner supported the transfer, citing the seriousness of the allegations against respondent No.4 and the decision of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The Tribunal quashed the transfer order, stating that it was premature and a violation of the transfer guidelines. The petitioner appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the transfer was premature and not in the public interest. It emphasized that a transfer cannot be made solely on the basis of complaints received against a government officer without initiating necessary disciplinary proceedings. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the Government to initiate proceedings against respondent No.4 if deemed fit.
Issues: 1. Premature transfer of a government servant and the circumstances under which it can be made. 2. Validity of transferring a government officer based on complaints without initiating disciplinary proceedings. 3. Whether the Tribunal's order suffered from any legal infirmity.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Premature transfer of a government servant must comply with the minimum tenure prescribed in the transfer guidelines. 2. Transfer of a government officer solely based on complaints without initiating necessary disciplinary proceedings is not a valid remedy. 3. The Tribunal's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and liberty was reserved to the Government to initiate proceedings against respondent No.4 if deemed fit.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
1.2. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction which deems fit to grant by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Respondent No.4 has filed an application No.11232/2022 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’, for short) seeking for the following reliefs:
2.2. Issue incidental or any other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in aid of the main relief sought for, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Considering the said application, the Tribunal vide its order dated 04.11.2022 had allowed the application No.11232/2022 and quashed the transfer order dated 01.10.2022 and directed reinstatement of the applicant in the event of the applicant being relieved and to initiate transfer proceedings in accordance with law as per the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013. It is being aggrieved by the same that the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are;
4.2. The petitioner claims to be a holder of MBBS and DVP degrees, who was initially appointed as a Medical Officer on 18.08.1997. She was later on designated as Senior Medical Officer and was appointed as a District Leprosy Control Officer in the office of the District Health and Family Welfare Services, Dharwad.
4.3. Respondent No.1 – State of Karnataka vide notification dated 01.10.2022 directed transfer of the petitioner to the post of District Health and Family Welfare Officer in place of respondent No.4, who was working in the said post from 13.01.2022.
4.4. The said transfer order was challenged by respondent No.4 in application No.11232/2022. Respondent No.4 had contended that he was initially appointed as Taluk Medical Officer on 08.10.2002 and worked at various places and thereafter was promoted as District Surgeon in the year 2019 and on 13.01.2022, he was promoted as District Health Officer and posted in Dharwad.
4.5. It is contended that respondent No.4 belonged to Group – A cadre, the tenure of the post is for a minimum of two years as prescribed in the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013 and since he had not completed the said period, he could not be transferred prematurely. He alleged that the transfer order had been passed only at the instigation of a political leader.
4.6. In support of the said contentions, the petitioner has relied upon various decisions. The petitioner, who was respondent before the Tribunal had filed her objections.
4.7. The petitioner had supported the transfer and contended that she is a holder of MBBS and DVP degrees. She was appointed as a Medical Officer on 18.08.1997, subsequently designated as Senior Medical Officer and thereafter appointed as District Leprosy Control Officer on 01.12.2014, after counseling she was directed to report as Senior Specialist in Taluka Hospital, Nargund. However before she could report there, vide notification dated 01.10.2022, since the respondent No.4 was being considered for transfer in view of certain complaints against him, on a recommendation made by the local Member of Parliament, the petitioner was posted in the place of respondent No.4 and in turn respondent No.4 had been posted to work at Taluka Hospital, Nargund.
4.8. The petitioner had furthe
Premature transfer of a government servant must comply with the minimum tenure prescribed in the transfer guidelines, and transfer based solely on complaints without initiating necessary disciplinary....
Government servants do not have a vested right to remain in a post; transfers must adhere to established guidelines and require prior approval from the Chief Minister to prevent arbitrary actions.
Transfer orders in government service must be made in public interest and administrative exigencies, and modifications to such orders require valid justification; courts will not interfere unless the....
Premature transfer of IAS officer before two-year tenure upheld based on prima facie material from departmental reports, without Civil Services Board or prior hearing, in administrative exigencies.
Court upheld that while transfers typically involve a three-year tenure, exceptions exist based on administrative necessity, emphasizing the requirement for such actions to serve public interest.
Transfer orders must adhere to established guidelines and natural justice principles; premature transfers without due process are unsustainable.
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer.
The transfer order based on allegations should be followed by a detailed investigation and disciplinary action, and the individual should be provided an opportunity to defend against the allegations ....
Administrative transfers are not subject to judicial review unless issued by an incompetent authority or based on mala fides, reaffirming the principle that employees cannot claim a right to remain i....
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
