IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100368 OF 2026 (S-TR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. ROOPA D/O. JASINTH RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS ASSISTANT STOREKEEPER, SIRSI DIVISIONAL STORES, HESCOM, SIRSI-581401, DIST. UTTARAKANNADA, (NOW UNDER TRANSFER).

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY KUMAR BHAT AND SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, HESCOM, NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025.

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, P .B ROAD, MA NJANNA HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025.

E

3. SRI. SUBRAMANYA G. GOUNDAR Digitally signed by AGE. MAJOR, OCC. METER READER, MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT HESCOM SIRSI, OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.

Date: 2026.02.18 10:31:07 +0530 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;

NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 13.01.2026 BEARING NO.H.C.O-07/B-28/2025-26/CYS-9862 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF SERIAL NO.4- PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ONLY IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, a Group-C employee working under the respondent-Hubbali Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) has called in question the Office Memorandum dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure-E), whereby, she has been shifted from the post of Assistant Storekeeper, Sirsi Divisional Stores to meter reader City Division, Sirsi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Storekeeper on 10.10.2022 and had not completed the minimum tenure of 4 years prescribed for Group-C employees under Clause-8 of the Transfer Guidelines. It is further contended that the impugned order, though styled as “Administrative” is in substance punitive, retaliatory and issued immediately after she complained about the mismanagement and irregularities in stockyard.

3. It is further contended that the transfer reverts to the post of meter reader notwithstanding her medical condition and earlier accommodation. It is submitted that no reasons are assigned in the order and the action is intended to silence a whistle-blower rather than serve any genuine administrative exigency.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned action is not a transfer, but a mere intra-office/intra-town adjustment within Sirsi town. The petitioner has been working at Sirsi continuously since 2007 and therefore, even otherwise, she has completed well beyond the minimum tenure prescribed under the Transfer Guidelines. Further, it is contended that the adjustment was necessary to ensure a transparency in ongoing enquiry into alleged stockyard irregularities.

5. It is further contended that the transfer guidelines do not apply to interim office arrangement made purely for administrative reasons and that the petitioner was not discharging her duties satisfactorily and was reportedly issued office notes, which justified her relocation.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned office endorsement dated 13.01.2026, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, can be sustained as a valid administrative adjustment, or whether it is vitiative as punitive or mala fide transfer contrary to the Transfer Guidelines?”

7. Though the respondents seek to categorize the impugned action as an intra-office adjustment, the Court cannot be guided by a mere nomenclature. The petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Storekeeper and is now directed to function as a Meter Reader, a role involvi