Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajkumar S vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 8 September, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.14591/2022 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJKUMAR S.,
S/O LATE SHARNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL)
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CIRCLE
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
RAMANAGAR - 560 060. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
2. THE DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATION AND
HUMAN RESOURCES)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
2
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
(ADMINISTRATION AND
HUMAN RESOURCES)
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. SRI K.T. MANJUNATH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
MAJOR,
WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CIRCLE
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LIMITED
BANGALORE RURAL CIRCLE,
T.T.M.C. BUILDING
KENGERI,
BANGALORE - 560 060. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANDRA CHUD A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 19/07/2022 (ANNEXURE-G) AND ISSUE WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/07/2022
BEARING NO.KAVIPRANINI/B59/34772/2022-23 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer
(Civil) from 21.01.2019 at Bangalore Rural and by virtue of
the order of transfer at Annexure-C dated 06.07.2022,
petitioner came to be transferred from the office at
Bangalore to the office of the respondent - Corporation at
Ramanagar. Similarly, respondent No.5 who was working as
Assistant Executive Engineer at Ramanagar was transferred
and posted to the place of petitioner as per the same order
of 06.07.2022. Subsequently, as per the order at Annexure-
G dated 19.07.2022, the earlier order of 06.07.2022
whereby the petitioner and respondent No.5 were
transferred, was rescinded specifying administrative
interest.
2. It is submitted that pursuant to the order of
06.07.2022, the petitioner was relieved as per the order of
18.07.2022 at Annexure-E and took charge as per the order
at Annexure-F dated 19.07.2022. It is submitted that on
19.07.2022 itself, the impugned order has been passed
whereby the order of transfer has been rescinded. Petitioner
submits that once the order of 06.07.2022 has been acted
upon and petitioner has been relieved and has also been
given reposting order pursuant to which, he has reported
for duty, question of passing the order dated 19.07.2022
does not arise. It is further submitted that even otherwise
ground must be made out for rescinding the order of
transfer, in the absence of which the order of Annexure-G
requires to be set aside. Reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Shashi Patil vs.
The Secretary, Department of Health and Family
Welfare - W.P.No.104179/2021 dated 05.01.2022.
The observations at paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the
said judgment are relied upon by the petitioner.
3. Sri. A. Chandrachud, learned counsel appearing
for respondents 1 to 4 upon asking of the Court has
produced the records in order to throw light on the
circumstances under which the order was passed on
19.07.2022 rescinding the earlier order of transfer dated
06.07.2022.
4. Perusal of the note sheet would reveal that the
cancellation of the transfer order was made on the sole
ground of request of the concerned Minister. Further perusal
of the communication of 14.07.2022 would indicate that the
Under Secretary, Department of Energy, has recommended
for transfer, placing reliance on the approval of the Minister
concerned. No reasons are forthcoming as to the
circumstances under which the order of transfer dated
06.07.2022 has been rescinded. The Division Bench in the
case of Dr. Shashi Patil has observed that when the order
of transfer is given effect to and implemented, notification
having spent itself the same was not available for
cancellation. Further the Division Bench has also noted the
observations of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
P.V.Poornima vs. State of Karnataka - AIR Online
2020 Kar 1676, wherein the Court has stipulated that
order of modification or cancellation must be accompanied
by the specific or detailed reasons for subsequent
modification or cancellation.
5. In the present case, the order does not make out
any reason, which reason must fall within the purview of
reasons enumerated in the Transfer Guidelines. The note
sheet also does not reveal any reasons or circumstances
warranting rescinding of the order of transfer dated
06.07.2022. Accordingly, taking note that the petitioner's
order for reposting was also made earlier to the order of
Annexure-G, it was not possible to the respondent -
Corporation to exercise power in rescinding the earlier order
dated 06.07.2022 and that too without assigning any
reasons (reasons must be as contemplated in the case of
Sri Rajashekar M. vs. The State of Karnataka and others in
W.P. No.45916/2018).
6. Accordingly, the impugned order of transfer at
Annexure-G is set aside. Petitioner and respondent No.5 are
to be restored to the same posting as it was prior to the
order dated 19.07.2022 at Annexure-G.
In light of the above, writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VP
