Karnataka High Court

Sri K N Chandramohan vs The Commissioner Of Excise on 8 February, 2024

Author: K.Somashekar

Bench: K.Somashekar

                           -1-       W.P.NO.788 OF 2024




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                        PRESENT
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                           AND
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA


       WRIT PETITION NO.788 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:


SRI K N CHANDRAMOHAN
S/O LATE K.S. NINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
RANGE NO. 47, ELECTRONIC CITY,
BUD-8, BENGALURU

R/AT NO. 113, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST CROSS, J.C. NAGARA,
KURUBARAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 086                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SHRI NAGARJUN A.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
    2ND FLOOR,
    TTMC 'A' BLOCK,
    BMTC BUILDING ,
    SHANTINAGARA,
    BENGALURU - 560 027

2 . SRI GIRISH K C
    PRESENTLY WORKING AS
    INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
                              -2-              W.P.NO.788 OF 2024




   UDUPI RANGE,
   UDUPI DISTRICT - 562 105.
                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BHANUPRAKASH, AAG ALONG WITH
 SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1
 SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADOVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i. CALL FOR
THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU DATED 01.01.2024 MADE IN A.No.4083/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS
ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID
ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW, AND ALLOW
THE APPLICATION No.4083/2023 AS PRAYER SOUGHT THEREIN,
ii. GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT
JUST IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 18TH JANUARY 2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY,UMESH M ADIGA J.,
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This writ petition is directed against the order passed by

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short

hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), dated 01.01.2024 in

application No.4083/2023, praying for the following reliefs:

i. Call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru dated 01.01.2024 made in A.No.4083/2023 vide Annexure - A peruse and quash the said order as erroneous and contrary to

-3- W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

law, and allow the application No.4083/2023 as prayer sought therein,

ii. Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit just in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has

been serving as Excise Inspector, which is Group - C post. He

is transferred from the post of Inspector of Excise, Range 47,

Electronic City, BUD-08, Bengaluru to the post of Inspector of

Excise M/s Beer Works and Micro Beverages, BUD-02 vide

transfer order dated 06.09.2023, which was challenged

before the Tribunal, bearing

No.ECE/ANi/106/TRF/2023(Bhaga - 2), vide Annexure - A2.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that

minimum tenure of Group-C cadre official is for four years, as

per the Transfer Guidelines, dated 07.06.2013. For

premature transfer, approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister is very

much necessary. However, the petitioner has been

prematurely transferred and thereby respondent Nos.1 and 2

have violated provisions of the Transfer Guidelines dated

07.06.2013. Hence, the said transfer is contrary to the law

-4- W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

laid down by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court

rendered in the catena of judgments.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that transfer

of petitioner is not in the interest of public, on the contrary, it

is with the malafide intention to harass the petitioner and due

to political intervention, to accommodate respondent No.2.

Therefore, the said transfer order is illegal, arbitrary and

malafide. With these reasons, prayed to allow the petition by

quashing the impugned transfer orders as well as order

passed by Tribunal in application No.4083/2023 dated

01.01.2024 vide Annexure - A.

5. The case of respondent No.1 - State is that the

transfer order dated 06.09.2023 is issued with prior approval

of Hon'ble Chief Minister and also in the public interest. The

transfer is in accordance with the Transfer Guidelines.

Transfer of a Government Official is incidental to service and

hence there is no question of malafide intention to transfer

the petitioner. The Department is restructured and

consequentially few officers are transferred. Therefore,

prayed to dismiss the petition.

-5- W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

6. Respondent No.2 has orally contended before the

Tribunal that the impugned transfer order is issued in the

public interest and administrative exigencies. It is approved

by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Petitioner has been transferred

in the same head quarter, therefore, question of causing

inconvenience and hardship does not arise. There are no

grounds to interfere in the impugned transfer order,

therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. We have heard the arguments of learned

advocates for both side.

8. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. Uday Holla,

appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that it is

settled principle of law that transfer guidelines dated

07.06.2013 has force of law and the Government shall adhere

to the guidelines mentioned in the said Transfer Guidelines.

However, in this case, the State has not followed the said

guidelines. Transfer is made on the political influence, which

is contrary to the guidelines. It is premature transfer, without

any reasons. Admittedly, petitioner is a Group- C officer of

-6- W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

the State Government and the minimum tenure is four years.

In this case, petitioner is prematurely transferred from

Vivekanagar Range to Electronic City, Range - 47 (BUD-08),

vide order dated 29.05.2020. Thereafter, he has been

disturbed by impugned Notification dated 06.09.2023 and the

said transfer is not with prior approval of Hon'ble Chief

Minister. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted

that even if it is an order at the instance of Hon'ble Chief

Minister, but no reasons are assigned to pass the said order.

Therefore, said transfer order is against law. The Tribunal

has not considered all these facts in its order. In view of

these reasons, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in

application No.4083/2023 is arbitrary and contrary to the

provision of law and hence prayed for allowing of the writ

petition by setting aside the impugned notification and order

passed by the Tribunal.

9. The learned Additional Advocate General Sri.

Bhanuprakash for respondent - State submits that the Excise

Department has been re-structured. Therefore, more number

of officers are transferred in the impugned transfer order

-7- W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

dated 06.09.2023. Hence, question of malafide intention to

transfer the petitioner does not arise. The learned Additional

Advocate General has further submitted that reasons were

assigned in the file for transfer of the officers in the impugned

transfer order and the Hon'ble Chief Minister considered the

reasons of the transfer and approved the impugned transfer

order prior to implementing the same. The file of transfer

also shows that some of the officials were retained and

transfer of some of them were cancelled for the

administrative reasons. It is true that petitioner is an official

of Excise Department in the cadre of Group-C. As per the

transfer guidelines, tenure of post of Group - C employee is

normally four years. However, the Government as well as

Hon'ble Chief Minister has every authority for premature

transfer of a Government servant by following Guidelines

No.9 of Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013.

10. The learned Additional Advocate General has

further submitted that petitioner is transferred in different

range in the Bengaluru head quarter. There is no change of

headquarter. Prior to transfer, he has been working as Excise

-8- W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

Inspector in different range and presently he has been

transferred and posted to different range. It would not cause

any hardship or harassment to the petitioner or member of

his family. Petitioner to gain sympathy of the Court has

stated so many incorrect facts and they are not tenable.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

11. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 -

Sri. Prithveesh M.K, has submitted that the impugned transfer

order is not violation of any of the Rules of Transfer

Guidelines. He has also supported the arguments advanced

by learned Additional Advocate General. The learned counsel

for respondent No.2 further submits that the guidelines does

not say that some reasons should be assigned for approval of

premature transfer by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. This is

stated in full Court Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka. Under these circumstances, relief sought in the

writ petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the

writ petition.

-9- W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

12. We have carefully gone through the impugned

judgment and annexures. It is not in dispute that petitioner

has been serving as Excise Inspector, which is Group-C post.

It is also not in dispute that he has been serving as Excise

Inspector, Range - 47, Electronic City, BUD - 08, Bengaluru

from 29.05.2020. He has not completed the tenure of four

years and it is a premature transfer. It appears that he has

completed about three years and three months as on the date

of transfer. He has been transferred from one Branch of

Bengaluru to another Branch without change of head quarter.

13. Under the impugned transfer order dated

06.09.2023, vide Annexure - A, 41 Officers have been

transferred. It is not in dispute that at the said time, more

number of Officers have been transferred to different places

under different Notification. In the preamble of transfer order,

it is stated that due to public interest and administrative

exigencies, the said officers have been transferred to different

places. It is not the case of petitioner that he alone was

transferred with the malafide intention prematurely. Annexure

- R1 show that proposal of transfers were considered in detail

- 10 - W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

and has been approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister as

required under Transfer Guidelines dated 07.06.2013. In

paragraph Nos.25 to 31 of Annexure - R1 there is no

reference that said proposals were made at the pressure of

political persons/representatives of the people. Under these

circumstances, there are no reasons to hold that impugned

transfer order is contrary to the Transfer Guidelines.

14. It is settled preposition of law that transfer of a

Government servant is incidental to his service. Transfer

could be made in the public interest and also administrative

contingency/exigency. As already stated above, in the

impugned transfer list, 41 excise inspectors have been

transferred. Therefore, it cannot be believed that with a

malafide intention, Government transferred the said 41

Officers along with the petitioner. The said contention is not

acceptable.

15. The Tribunal in the impugned order followed the

law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Allah Saheb Vs. State of Karnataka1. The Tribunal

(2017) ILR Kar 86

- 11 - W.P.NO.788 OF 2024

has also considered contentions of both the parties and given

the findings. The said findings are not arbitrary, perverse or

illegal. Therefore, interference by this Court is not required.

16. Both the side counsel have produced catena of

judgments delivered by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme

Court. There is no need to refer all the said citations in this

judgment. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case, it is held by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court that :

     •      Transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013

     amounts to law and it shall be followed.

     •      Premature     transfer       shall     be    in

accordance with the Transfer Guidelines dated

07.06.2013.

     •      Transfer should not be made at the

     instance of political person.

     •      Transfer of officers from one office to

another office in the same head quarters will

also amount to transfer.

     •      Transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2013

     does    not   prohibit   the      transfer    of   the
                                   - 12 -           W.P.NO.788 OF 2024




        Government      servant    either   premature     or

delayed but it regulates the transfer and

transfer shall not be made with malafide

intention, arbitrarily and indiscriminately.

17. The said guidelines were considered. As already

stated above, petitioner have been serving in the said post

from 29.05.2020 till 06.09.2023. It appears that by the

intervention of the Tribunal he has been serving in the same

post till disposal of the application before the Tribunal. It

appears that he has been shifted from his post about 7 to 8

months prior to completion of his tenure. He is posted in

different office in the same head quarter. Therefore, there is

no question of causing any hardship to the Government