SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22435

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B M SHYAM PRASAD AND SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
DR. L R SHANKAR NAIK – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 103085/2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR WRIT PETITION NO. 103085 OF 2026 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

DR. L R SHANKAR NAIK S/O. LAXMAN NAIK, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, VIJAYANAGARA, HOSAPETE – 583 201, DIST: VIJAYANAGARRA, R/O: JAMBUNATH ROAD, GAVISIDDESHWARA LAYOUT, HOSAPETE – 583 201, PERMANENT R/O: KALLAHALLI THANDA – 583 213, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITIN RAMESH, SRI. B. SIDDESWARA, SRI. BASAVARAJ YARADONI &

SMT. MANASI SHARMA, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE UNDER SECRETARY.

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, AROGYA SOUDHA, 5TH FLOOR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 023.

4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, AROGYA SOUDHA, 6TH FLOOR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 023.

5. DR. M. VINAY.

AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: DISTRICT FAMILY. WELFARE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION OFFICER, HOSAPETE – 583 201.

DIST: VIJAYANAGARA.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.10459/2026 AT ANNEXURE-B, PENDING ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI. TO ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/4/2026 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.10459/2026 AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT INTERIM ORDER STAYING THE IMPUGNED LIEN TRANSFER ORDER DATED 8/4/2026 ISSUED BY

3RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A5 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)

The petitioner is a Group ‘A’ officer and an ENT Specialist. The petitioner is working as the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Vijayanagara District, and he has called in question the third respondent's order dated 08.04.2026 to transfer him from the present post to report to the Commissioner's Office for further posting. The petitioner has called in question this Order with the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] in Application No.10459 of 2026, with a request for interim order, staying the operation of such transfer. The Tribunal has only issued notice to the Authorities without granting immediate relief.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by this decision and therefore has preferred this writ petition. This Court, on 16.04.2026, while considering the petitioner's request for interim order, has recorded the submissions by Sri Nitin Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner thus:

“[A] The petitioner is working as District Health and Family Welfare Officer (DHO), Vijayanagara District and he has his minimum tenure until the end of August, 2026.

[B] A FIR in Crime No.5 of 2025 is registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta, Hosapete, Vijayanagar District against the petitioner on the allegations of disproportionate assets for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in December 2025.

[C] There is no coercive action or even initiation of disciplinary proceedings, nor an order for suspension.

[D] At the instance of the State Government, which is not the petitioner's disciplinary authority, the petitioner has been shifted directing him to appear before the Commissioner for posting, placing the respondent No.4 in his place.

The learned counsel submits that the petitioner's transfer can only be called punitive and imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top