Management's authority to transfer employees under administrative guidelines must prioritize workplace safety and operational necessity.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.

1. Issue notice.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 accepts notice.

3. With the consent of the counsel appearing for the respondents, the appeal has been finally heard.

4. The appellants (Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.) have filed the present appeal impugning an interim order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No.1/2025 in Writ Petition No.7577/2025. The said application was filed by the appellant seeking vacation of the stay order dated 14.03.2025, whereby the transfer of respondent No.1 as DGM (HRD) to SGS was stayed.

5. It is respondent No.1’s case in the writ petition that the transfer was not in conformity with the transfer guidelines and therefore such premature transfer was impermissible. The learned Single Judge had granted an interim order dated 14.03.2025 staying the transfer of respondent No.1.

6. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that the transfer order, which is impugned before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7577/2025 did not bear the signatures of the Managing Director [MD] of the appellants and this was also one of the grounds for challenging the said order.

7. The appellants had filed an application for vacation of the stay order dated 14.03.2025, inter alia contending that no such blanket stay order could be granted. The learned counsel for appellant had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in KPCL v. Suma H. W.A. No. 2749/2019, in support of his contention. It was contended that there were no allegations of malafide and the said decision was squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the learned Single judge did not accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants.

8. We consider it apposite to reproduce the relevant extract of the impugned order, which sets out the reasons for premature transfer of respondent No1. The same reads as under.

"(v) It is contended that the premature transfer of petitioner was necessitated due to following reasons:

(a) The respondent No.3 who was due to retire in May, 2025, made a request to a member of parliament for his promotion to the post of General Manager (HRD) and transfer him to the head office at Bengaluru, since his family is residing in Bengaluru. However, since the respondent No.3 did not meet the criteria for the promotion to the post of General Manager, (HRD), the Managing Director who had the power to consider the request of the respondent No.3 for a transfer to Bengaluru under clauses 3.11, 3.12 and 6.0 of the transfer guidelines, passed the impugned order transferring the respondent No.3 to the head office at Bengaluru and transferred the petitioner from the head office to SGS as DGM-HRD.

(b) It is alleged that there were serious allegations of misconduct and malafides against the petitioner in the process of selecting and appointing nurses at the staff hospital in Ambikanagar which was the subject matter of dispute in W.P.No.106025/2023. It is also alleged that there was complaints of disorderly behaviour and workplace harassment against the petitioner by his fellow employees and therefore, in the interest of maintaining a safe work place for its employees, the respondent No.1 took the decision to transfer the petitioner to SGS by the impugned order. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, it is prayed that the order of stay granted by this Court be vacated forthwith."

9. The learned Single Judge had concluded that th