Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Sachin Shankar Magadum, Rajesh Rai K, JJ
SHRI R NAGASHAYANA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP No. 14787 of 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 14787 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijaya Kumar
For the Respondents: B.P. Radha
Under the Statutory Policy Rules, 2025, an official against whom a departmental enquiry has been initiated and articles of charge have been issued cannot be permitted to continue in an executive post.
Headnote:The petitioner approached the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interim order of the Tribunal which refused to stay a transfer order. The petitioner, a Deputy Commissioner of Excise, had been suspended on allegations of demanding bribes, subsequently reinstated following a stay by the Tribunal, and then transferred to another post. The petitioner contended that upon reinstatement, they should have continued in the original post. The court examined whether the petitioner could continue in an executive post while a departmental enquiry was pending and charges had been issued. The court observed that in view of the Statutory Policy Rules, 2025, an official under such circumstances cannot be permitted to continue in an executive post. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the challenge against the tribunal's refusal to stay a transfer order following a suspension and reinstatement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. restriction on holding executive posts during pending departmental enquiries under statutory policy rules, 2025. (Para 4) |
| 3. dismissal of the writ petition and direction for the tribunal to dispose of the application expeditiously. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNALs ORDER DATED 30/04/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2413/2026 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for brevity, "Tribunal") in A.No.2413/2026, whereby the Tribunal declined to grant an interim stay on the operation, execution, and implementation of the order dated 18.04.2026 issued by respondent No.1, produced as Annexure-A5.
2. The briefly stated facts of the case are that:
The petitioner, who was working as the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mandya District, was placed under suspension by order dated 03.02.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal stayed its operation by order dated 12.02.2026. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Bengaluru as Commissioner of Excise in place of respondent No.3, and respondent No.3, in turn, was transferred to the petitioner’s post. The said transfer order was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in Application No.2413/2026, wherein the petitioner sought an interim stay of the operation of the transfer order issued by respondent No.1, produced as Annexure-A5. However, the Tribunal rejected the prayer for interim relief by the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. We have heard Sri. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B.P. Radha., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 so also perused the documents placed before us.
4. On a careful perusal of the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 03.02.2026 on allegations of demanding bribe. The said suspension order was subsequently stayed by the Tribunal. As such, it is the contention of the petitioner that, upon reinstatement, he ought to have been permitted to continue in the same post and at the same place, instead of being transferred to place of respondent No.3. The records disclose that a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and that the articles of charge have already been issued. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue in an executive post in view of the Statutory Policy Rules, 2025 . This aspect of the matter requires deeper consideration by the Tribunal.
5. Hence, we find no error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in declining to grant an interim stay of the transfer order dated 18.04.2026, produced as Annexure-A5. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the Tribunal to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within an outer limit of eight weeks.
7. The observations made in this petition shall not come in the way of the Tribunal while disposing the application.
