Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, T.M.NADAF
K.N. Rajappa, S/o. Late Sri P. Kamanna – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Its Principal Secretary, Forest, Ecology, Environment Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requests court intervention after tribunal's order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural history and continuous litigation from 2017. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court considers if tribunal's order should be interfered with. (Para 5) |
| 4. counsels present contrasting views on proceedings and fairness. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court’s discretion to intervene in administrative decisions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. tribunal's findings and their legal implications on petitioner's status. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J.
The travails for the petitioner in his service with the Department of Forests has begun in the year 2015, and it has persisted with the Order dated 28.03.2024 in Application No.4597 of 2023 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, the Tribunal]. The petitioner's failure in his Application with the Tribunal affords him the cause to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Tribunal's order.
2. The petitioner has invoked the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [for short, the 1985 Act] to call in question the second respondent's order dated 21.09.2023 and
The Charge Memo based on an invalid order is unsustainable; therefore, the High Court under Article 226 is justified in quashing the Tribunal's directive for further inquiries.
Transfer orders must adhere to established guidelines and natural justice principles; premature transfers without due process are unsustainable.
The court affirmed that transfer orders must respect Tribunal directions and applicable guidelines, recognizing the petitioner's right to his assigned post unless public interest dictates otherwise.
Once a valid transfer order is executed, it should not be interfered with, emphasizing governmental discipline and lawful authority.
The court emphasized that jurisdictional issues must be resolved before a tribunal can adjudicate on matters, especially when related proceedings are pending in higher courts.
The issuance of a Charge Memo by an unauthorized authority after undue delay is unsustainable, as negligible errors do not constitute misconduct.
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 disciplinary authority that initiates proceedings must be the appointing authority; actions taken by a subordinate authority are illegal and violate principles of natural justice.
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
