Karnataka High Court

Smt Shobha vs The Commissioner Of Excise on 8 February, 2024

Author: K.Somashekar

Bench: K.Somashekar

                          -1-           W.P.NO.823 OF 2024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                       PRESENT
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
                         AND
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA


       WRIT PETITION NO.823 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT SHOBHA
D/O. KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
PADMANABHANAGAR RANGE NO.36,
BUD-6, BENGALURU.
R/AT NO. 23, 4TH CROSS,
BAPUJI LAYOUT, VIJAYANGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.                 ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI BASAVARAJA PATEL G.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:

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

2.   SMT. MAMATHA. M.R.
     AGED MAJOR,
     PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
     K.S.B.C.L. DEPO
     MANDYA DISTRICT - 573 131
                                     ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BHANUPRAKASH, AAG
 ALONG WITH SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1
                                     -2-                    W.P.NO.823 OF 2024




SRI. M.S. BHAGAWAT, SENIOR COUNSL FOR
SRI. LOKESH M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R/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.4079/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS ERRONEOUS
AND CONTRARY TO LAW, AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION
NO.4079/2023 AS PRAYER SOUGHT THEREIN. ii) GRANT
SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION.

    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.4079/2023, 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.4079/2023 vide Annexure - A peruse and quash the said order as erroneous and contrary to law, and allow the application No.4079/2023 as prayer sought therein,

-3- W.P.NO.823 OF 2024

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.

She is transferred from the post of Inspector of Excise,

Padmanabhanagar, Range -36, BUD-06, Bengaluru to the

post of Inspector of Excise, Khoday R.C.A., BUD-04,

Bengaluru, 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.823 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.4079/2023 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.823 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 Counsel Sri. C.M. Nagabhushan,

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 the State

-6- W.P.NO.823 OF 2024

Government and the minimum tenure is four years. In this

case, petitioner is prematurely transferred from

Padmanabhanagar to M.C.A., Bengaluru, vide order dated

29.05.2020. Thereafter, she 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 the 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.4079/2023 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 on

behalf of State submits that the Excise Department has

been re-structured. Therefore, more number of officers are

transferred in the impugned transfer order dated

06.09.2023. Hence, question of malafide intention to

-7- W.P.NO.823 OF 2024

transfer the petitioner does not arise. The learned AAG

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 Inspector in different range and presently he has

-8- W.P.NO.823 OF 2024

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 Senior Counsel for respondent No.2

- Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, 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.

12. We have carefully gone through the impugned

judgment and annexures. It is not in dispute that petitioner

-9- W.P.NO.823 OF 2024

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, Padmanabhanagar, Range - 36, BUD -

06, Bengaluru from 29.05.2020. She has not completed

the tenure of four years and it is a premature transfer. It

appears that she 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 and has been

- 10 - W.P.NO.823 OF 2024

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

- 11 - W.P.NO.823 OF 2024

case of Allah Saheb Vs. State of Karnataka1. The

Tribunal 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.




    (2017) ILR Kar 86
                                - 12 -              W.P.NO.823 OF 2024




     •      Transfer of officers from one office to