JUDGMENT :

D K SINGH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Application No.2617/2026 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the said application, quashing the transfer order dated 14.05.2026.

2. The respondent No.3 was working as a Inspector of Police, Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Bengaluru, and was also holding an additional charge at Byadarahalli Police Station. The respondent No.3 was transferred from CID, Bengaluru and posted as Police Inspector, Byadarahalli Police Station vide transfer order dated 10.05.2026. Under the very same order, the petitioner, who was working as Police Inspector, Pulakeshinagar Police Station, was transferred and posted to Legislative House Security, Bengaluru. The respondent No.3 was relieved from CID, Bengaluru on 11.05.2026 and he reported at Byadarahalli Police Station at 2 p.m. on the same day. The Tribunal has recorded that he made an entry in the Station House Diary and communicated his reporting to the concerned authorities.

3. On 14.05.2026, a subsequent transfer order came to be issued whereby respondent No.3 was transferred from Byadarahalli Police Station to Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station and the petitioner was posted to Byadarahalli Police Station. The petitioner was relieved from Pulakeshinagar Police station on 14.05.2026 and on the same day, pursuant to the order dated 14.05.2026, he reported at Byadarahalli Police Station at about 9.45 p.m.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2026, respondent No.3 approached the Tribunal contending that the subsequent transfer was contrary to Sections 20B and 20F of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and that the Police Establishment Board had not taken any decision permitting such transfer.

5. The Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent No.3 and quashed the order dated 14.05.2026. The Tribunal held that the applicant had been transferred to Byadarahalli Police Station pursuant to the transfer order dated 10.05.2026 and had reported for duty there on 11.05.2026. The subsequent order dated 14.05.2026, transferring him from Byadarahalli to Karnataka Lokayukta, was therefore treated as a premature transfer.

6. The Tribunal further held that the transfer order dated 10.05.2026 had been issued pursuant to the decision of the Police Establishment Board. Therefore, any subsequent modification of the said order also ought to have been placed before the Police Establishment Board. According to the Tribunal, the second respondent could not, on his own, modify the earlier decision without obtaining the approval of the Board.

7. The Tribunal relied upon Sections 20B and 20F of the Act and held that the statutory requirement relating to the tenure and transfer of police officers had not been complied with. It also considered the decisions relied upon by the respondent No.3 concerning premature transfer and the exercise of powers relating to transfer and posting. The Tribunal consequently held that the order dated 14.05.2026 was issued without proper authority and could not be sustained. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the said order and directed the respondents to restore and implement the earlier transfer notification dated 10.05.2026.

8. The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the Tribunal, quashing the transfer order dated 14.05.2026 on the ground that the transfer of the respondent No.3 from Byadarahalli Police Station to Karnataka Lokayukta amounted to a premature transfer in violation of Sections 20B and 20F of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 warrants interference by this Court?

9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The Tribunal proceeded mainly on the ground that the order dated 14.05.2026 was issued with