R. Shripad S/O L.R Lakshmanbhat vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3266 Kant

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RAGASWAMY

        WRIT PETITION No.201430/2021 (S-TR)

BETWEEN

R. Shripad S/o L.R.Lakshmanbhat
Age: 56 years, Occ: Chief Officer
Town Municipal Council Chitguppa
Dist: Bidar-585412
                                            ...Petitioner

(By Sri Preetam Deulgaonkar, Advocate)

AND

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Represented by its Secretary
       Urban Development Department
       M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560001

2.     Sri. Husamuddina
       Age: about 52 years
       Occ: Chief Officer
       Town Municipal Council
       Hallikheda, Dist: Bidar-585412
                                         ...Respondents

(By Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, Government Adv. for R1;
    Sri Mahesh Patil, Advocate for R2)
                                         2




      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for
quashing      the      office      memo       bearing    No.
Sanke:NAE44TME2021          dated    17.07.2021     produced
herewith at Annexure-D passed by respondent No.1 as the
same are illegal arbitrary and without the authority of law
and etc.

     This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, the court made the following:-

                                  ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the correctness

of the order of transfer of the petitioner from the post of

Chief Officer of Chitguppa Town Municipal Council.

2. In terms of a notification dated 31.10.2019,

the petitioner who was a KMMS Grade-II Officer was

posted as the Chief Officer of Chitguppa Town Municipal

Council on in-charge basis. The Government reserved its

right to recall or depute the petitioner to any other place

and the posting of the petitioner was purely temporary.

Later, the petitioner was transferred out and the

respondent No.2 herein was posted again on temporary

basis as the Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council,

Chitguppa.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends

that the transfer of the petitioner was in clear violation of

the guidelines dated 07.06.2013 issued by the

Government of Karnataka prescribing the guidelines for

transfer of Government Servants. He submitted that the

petitioner had not completed the minimum tenure of two

years as the Chief Officer at Chitguppa Town Municipal

Council and therefore transferring him out of the post was

in clear violation of the guidelines which is held to be

statutory in nature by the Full Bench of this court in the

case of Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.,

reported in 2011 (3) Kar. L.J. 562 (FB). He also

contends that the petitioner was not provided a posting

and therefore the order of transfer is bad, in view of the

judgment of Division Bench of this court in Miss. Seema

H.K. Mariswamy vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.,

reported in 2017(2) AKR 57.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on

the other hand contend that the petitioner was posted on

temporary basis as the Chief Officer of Chitguppa Town

Municipal Council. Therefore, he had no lien over the post

and cannot claim that the transfer guidelines were violated

since the transfer guidelines were applicable to regular

employees and not to employees who are on in-charge

basis. He also brought to my notice Annexure-R2, which is

a letter dated 20.05.2021 addressed by the President of

the Town Municipal Council, Chitguppa to the Deputy

Commissioner bringing to his notice, the lackadaisical

attitude on the part of the petitioner in not participating in

ensuring measures to control spread of Covid-19

pandemic. This letter of the President of the Chief Town

Municipal Council, Chitguppa was placed before a meeting

of the Town Municipal Council whereat all the Councilors

resolved to write to the Deputy Commissioner for removal

of the petitioner. This was followed by another complaint

dated 17.04.2021 by a Member of the Town Municipal

Council, Chitguppa who alleged irregularities and financial

impropriety by the petitioner. Learned counsel for

respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner had come

under a scanner and therefore his continuation as a Chief

Officer of Town Municipal Council Chitguppa was found to

be unworthy and hence he was transferred out. He also

contended that the transfer guidelines is not applicable to

in-charge incumbents.

5. Having considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident from

Annexure-A that the petitioner was posted as a Chief

Officer on temporary basis and his appointment was

subject to change by the Government. The petitioner has

not challenged the condition attached to his posting as the

Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Chitguppa.

Therefore, he has accepted that his posting as Chief Officer

was purely temporary. The petitioner, therefore cannot

now turn around and claim any lien over the post or claim

that his in-charge post was in fact a permanent posting.

In view of the allegations against the petitioner of financial

impropriety and in view of the fact that the petitioner was

not willing to involve himself in taking measures for control

of spread of Covid-19 pandemic, the Government has felt

it proper to appoint the respondent No.2 in his place on in-

charge basis. Hence, the question of violating the transfer

guidelines would not arise as the guidelines are not

applicable to incharge posting. Hence, this writ petition

lacks merit and same is dismissed.

6. The respondent No.1 is directed to provide a

place of posting to the petitioner within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL