Transfer orders must adhere to established guidelines and natural justice principles; premature transfers without due process are unsustainable.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State, and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Notice to respondent No.4 is dispensed with.

2. The relief sought in the writ petition is as follows:

"1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs or orders quashing the order dated 19- 11-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.2978/2025 vide Annexure A and allow said Application No.2978/2025 by the order dated 30/06/2025 bearing No.32/2025-26 in serial No.20 produced as Annexure A1 and order dated 30/06/2025 bearing No.31/2025-26 in serial No.89 and 90 produced as Annexure A2 and order to forthwith reinstate the petitioner to continue his service as Range Forest Officer, Mysuru Range.

2. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity".

3. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in Application No.2978/2025 vide Annexure-A. It is contend that the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , challenging the premature transfer. The Memorandum of Application is produced as Annexure-B.

4. The petitioner was working as Range Forest Officer. He was deputed to Nagarahole Wildlife Range from December 2021 to July 2024 and was thereafter transferred to Mysuru Range as per the order dated 31.07.2024 vide Annexure-A3. Within a period of 11 months, he was subjected to premature transfer as per the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 bearing No.31/2025-26, wherein no posting was given to him and he was kept in the waiting list vide Annexure-A2. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Range Forest Officer at Working Plan Unit, Mysuru, as per order dated 30.06.2025 bearing No.32/2025-26 vide Annexure-A1. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Application No.2978/2025 challenging the premature transfer vide Annexure-B.

5. Respondent No.5 filed statements of objections vide Annexure-C seeking dismissal of the application. The statements of objections was accompanied by documents marked as Annexures R1 to R4. In view of the dismissal of the application, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The main contention urged by the writ petitioner is that the orders passed at Annexures A1 and A2 are perverse, whimsical, and issued without due application of mind. It is contend that the transfer is premature and the same is punishment to the petitioner. The petitioner had served only for 11 months at Mysuru Range and was again subjected to premature transfer on 30.06.2025, which is stated to be wholly illegal and impermissible in law and against the transfer guidelines.

7. The counsel further contend that there was a note dated 05.06.2025 from the Private Secretary to the Minister for Forest, Ecology and Environment seeking an enquiry and submission of report as to whether the petitioner was present during the Minister’s visit. It is alleged that, without application of mind and at the instance of the Minister, the impugned orders were passed, which is contrary to the Rule of Law.

8. The counsel further contend that, as per the Minister’s tour programme dated 03.06.2025, the concerned Minister was scheduled to visit Mysuru on 04.06.2025 and not on 05.06.2025. The allega