Premature transfers of government employees require specific reasons beyond general statements of public interest, as outlined in Transfer Guidelines.

ORDER :

S.G. PANDIT, J.

Since both the above writ petitions are filed questioning the same order dated 03/10/2024, in Application No.4126/2024, clubbed with 4129/2024, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Both the writ petitioners are working as Senior Geologists in the Department of Mines and Geology. Thepetitioner in Writ Petition No.28046/2024 was posted as Senior Geologist, Shivamogga under notification dated 27.07.2023. Whereas the writ petitioner in W.P.No.27973/2024 was posted as Senior Geologist, Haveri under notification dated 26.07.2023. Under impugned transfer notification dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure-A5), both the petitioners were transferred and other officers were posted. Questioning the said notification of transfer, both the petitioners approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.4126/2024 and 4129/2024, respectively, among other grounds contending that the transfer is premature.

3. The Tribunal under impugned order rejected the applications mainly on the ground that the order of transfer is approved by the Chief Minister by assigning reasons and the transfer is already implemented. In case of the petitioner in Writ Petition W.P.28046/2024, the Tribunal also has observed that the enquiry against the petitioner is pending. Questioning the common order passed in both the applications, the writ petitioners are before this Court.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Prithveesh M.K., and Sri.D.R.Ravishankar for Sri.Swaroop.S, learned counsel for respondent No.3, as well as Sri.Ravidranath.B, learned AGA for Respondent nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the transfer of the petitioners are premature, in that, they have not completed minimum tenure of two years at their posting at Shivamogga and Haveri respectively. It is submitted that the petitioners are posted to Shivamogga on 27.07.2023 and to Haveri on 26.07.2023 respectively, and as on the date of the transfer, they had only completed one year of their tenure. Further, learned counsel would submit that, though it is placed before the Tribunal that the transfer is approved by the Chief Minister, no reasons are recorded for their premature and untimely transfer. Learned counsel would also submit that the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the transfer has already been implemented, it is impermissible for the Tribunal to modify the implemented order of transfer is wholly erroneous.

6. It is submitted that the writ petitioners were before the Tribunal immediately, on issuance of the transfer notification dated 22.08.2024. It is further submitted that even if the orders are implemented, it would not preclude the petitioners from approaching the legal forum and it would not preclude the Courts from examining the validity of such orders.

7. Learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh would further submit that no enquiry as noted by the Tribunal against the petitioner is pending by issuance of the charge memo. He submits that only show cause notice dated 19.08.2024, was issued that too subsequent to approval of the transfer by the Chief Minister. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the subsequent issuance of show cause notice could not be taken note of, to examine the validity of the transfer. Thus, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R.Ravi Shankar for respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.28046/2024, submits that since there were serious allegations against the petitioner