Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.G. Pandit, K.V. Aravind, JJ
SRI GIRISH K C. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satish K.
For the Respondents: Reuben Jacob, Shivareddy, Chandrashekar L.
Officers of the Excise Department are entitled to the minimum tenure of service as prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025, and premature transfers are impermissible unless reasons are recorded under the proviso to Rule 5(2).
Headnote:The case involves the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025, specifically regarding the minimum tenure of service. A Group-C officer was transferred to Shivamogga before completing the mandatory three-year tenure prescribed under Rule 2(1)(e) and Rule 5(2). The petitioner challenged the transfer order and the subsequent rejection by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The primary issue was whether the transfer of the petitioner was premature in light of the statutory minimum tenure. The court reasoned that under the Rules and the precedent established in Smt. Chandrakala S.B. vs. State of Karnataka, officers are entitled to the minimum tenure unless the competent authority invokes the proviso to Rule 5(2) by recording specific reasons for premature transfer in public and administrative interest. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 is also set aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to a transfer order based on premature movement before completion of minimum tenure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. entitlement of group-c officers to a minimum tenure of three years under the 2025 rules. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. requirement of recording reasons under rule 5(2) proviso for valid premature transfers. (Para 8) |
| 4. setting aside of premature transfer orders that violate minimum tenure rules. (Para 9) |
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/01/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4439/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned counsel Sri Satish K., for petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Reuben Jacob along with Sri V Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Chandrashekar L., learned counsel.
2. The petitioner is an Inspector of Excise. He was transferred to Bengaluru by transfer order dated 06.09.2023 and took charge at Bengaluru on 08.01.2024. The State Government notified the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025 (for short, ‘the Rules’), with effect from 14.05.2025. In accordance with the Rules, a list of officers eligible for transfer was notified, and the petitioner was transferred to Shivamogga by order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11). Under the same transfer order, respondent No.4 was posted to the place of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.4439/2025. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, rejected the application.
3. Learned counsel Sri K. Satish appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of the decision of this Court in W.P. No.29579/2025 and connected matters (decided on 20.02.2026 in the case of Smt. Chandrakala S.B. vs. State of Karnataka and other batch of petitions), the impugned transfer order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that, in view of the judgment in the above-referred case, the transfer of the petitioner is premature.
4. Per contra, Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General, along with Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that in view of the judgment cited above, the transfer of the petitioner is premature. The learned Additional Advocate General is unable to dispute that the very same transfer order was the subject matter of the batch of writ petitions. However, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that, in view of the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner, the respondent authorities are entitled to effect a premature transfer in terms of the proviso to Rule 5(2) of the Rules.
4.1. It is further submitted that pursuant to the transfer order, the petitioner was relieved on 25.09.2025 and reported for duty on 08.10.2025 at the transferred place, i.e., Shivamogga. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 has reported to the post earlier occupied by the petitioner prior to the transfer. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that if the transfer is disturbed, unintended consequences would arise. It is therefore his submission that the order of transfer be maintained.
5. Learned counsel Sri Chandrashekar L., appearing for respondent No.4, in line with the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, submits that pursuant to the transfer made under the impugned order, respondent No.4 has reported for duty at Bengaluru and has served for more than six mon
