Karnataka High Court
Smt Kavya K Kora vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.22325 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KAVYA K. KORA
W/O PRADEEP KUMAR C.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WAS WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR
B.T.M. LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 029
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU- 560 001
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
8TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
3. SRI. BHASKAR S. CHOUR
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAPPA CHOUR
AGED MAJOR
PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUB-REGISTRAR
-
2
OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR
B.T.M. LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 029
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI. B.O. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND THE HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22/09/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.06.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The substantial prayers in this writ petition are as
follows:-
"(a) CALL for records from the respondents and the
Hon'ble Tribunal pertaining to the impugned
order dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure - A);
(b) SET ASIDE the impugned Order dated
22.09.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in
Application No.3583/2023 (Annexure - A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS the said application
No.3583/2023 filed by the Respondent No.3
herein before the Hon'ble Tribunal (Annexure-
F), in the interest of justice and equity."
-
2. The question raised in this writ petition is with
regard to the legality of the orders of transfer issued by the
first respondent on 30.06.2023 and 06.07.2023,
respectively. The third respondent herein was the applicant
before the Tribunal. The application was filed challenging
Annexure-A5 order dated 30.06.2023, by which the
petitioner herein, who was the third respondent before the
Tribunal was posted as Sub-Registrar, BTM Layout,
Bengaluru as well as Annexure-A6, order dated 06.07.2023,
by which, the applicant, the third respondent was posted as
Sub-Registrar, Holenarasipura, Hassan District.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-
Registrar by direct recruitment on 15.06.2019. She was
posted as Additional District Registrar in the Mysore Urban
Development Authority on 04.01.2021. By the order
impugned by the Tribunal dated 30.06.2023, she was
transferred and posted to the place of the third respondent
as Sub-Registrar, BTM Layout, Bangalore. It is contended
that there were several allegations of financial impropriety
-
and corruption against the third respondent and on
05.07.2023, the department had passed an order entrusting
holding of the inquiry against the third respondent herein to
Upa Lokayukta. It is submitted that therefore on
06.07.2023, the third respondent was given a posting as
Sub-Registrar, Holenarasipura, Hassan District and required
to report for duty immediately. On 07.07.2023, the writ
petitioner reported for duty at BTM Layout, Bengaluru and
was permitted to join duty. On 07.07.2023, the third
respondent had addressed a letter to the Revenue Minister,
Government of Karnataka seeking a posting at
Hesaraghatta, Bengaluru instead of posting given to him at
Holenarasipura, Hassan.
4. It is submitted that without disclosing any of
these facts, the application was moved before the Tribunal
on 07.08.2023. On 22.09.2023, the Tribunal passed an
order impugned herein finding that the transfer of third
respondent was a premature transfer, without assigning
reasons and without obtaining the prior sanction of the Chief
Minister. It is submitted that the only aspect which was
-
taken note of was that the third respondent had been posted
as Sub-Registrar, BTM Layout and had reported for duty
only on 28.05.2020 and that the tenure prescribed for a
Group 'C' post is 4 years. It was further erroneously held by
the Tribunal that since the orders of transfer does not
provide any reasons and is not approved by the Chief
Minister, the same would not be sustainable.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contends that the third respondent had been working at
Bangalore itself from the year 2012 onwards. It is submitted
that several departmental inquiries had been initiated
against the third respondent. It is submitted that there
were allegations specifically with regard to financial
irregularities committed by him while he was working as
Sub-Registrar at the BTM Layout. It is submitted that this
fact was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the 3rd
respondent and it was only on account of suppression of the
said material fact that the Tribunal quashed the order of
transfer dated 30.06.2023. It is submitted that the State's
specific contention that the transfer of the petitioner herein
-
to BTM Layout was a part of general transfer which was
carried out within the time provided for general transfer by
the guidelines and that no permission whatsoever was
required for the same, was not considered by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
relies on the following decisions:-
• Sri. N. Venkatesh v. The State of Karnataka & Others,
Order dated 12.12.2023 passed in WP No.23998/2023,
Paras 12-14;
• Sri. N. Krishnappa v. The State of Karnataka & Others,
Order dated 14.12.2023 passed in WP No.7922/2023,
Paras 13-14;
• Sri. K.M. Prasahanth Kumar v. The State of Karnataka &
Others, Order dated 20.12.2023 passed in WP
No.21643/2023, Para 17;
• Sri. S.R. Harish v. The State of Karnataka & Another,
Order dated 20.01.2024 passed in WP No.18062/2023,
Paras 17 & 19;
• Gujarat Electricity Board & Another v. Atmaram
Sungomal Poshani, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 602, Paras 4
& 6;
• S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Others v. Union of India &
Others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1, Paras 49 & 51;
• K. Jayaram & Others v. Bangalore Development Authority
& Others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815, Paras 14 & 15;
-
• Mohinder Singh Gill & Another v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, reported in (1978) 1
SCC 405;
• Sri. R.S. Pyatigoudar v. The State of Karnataka & Others,
Order dated 24.07.2019 passed in WP No.202031/2019
(S-KAT);
• Dr Nagorao Shivaji Chavan v. Dr Sunil Purushottam
Bhamre & Others reported in (2019) 13 SCC 788, Paras 6,
8, 9 & 10;
• Sri. B. Ravi v. The State of Karnataka & Others, Order
dated 17.11.2015 passed in WP No.44085/2015, Paras 11
& 13;
• Sri. N.S. Chidananda v. The State of Karnataka & Others,
Order dated 05.03.2020 passed in WP No.1991/2020,
Paras 9 & 10;
• M.S.N. Babu v. Sri. N.S. Chidananda & Others, Order
dated 04.12.2020 passed in Review Petition
No.113/2020, Para 6;
• Sri. Narahari K.R. v. Karnataka Electricity Supply
Company Limited & Others, Order dated 23.04.2021
passed in WP No.6356/2021, Para 11;
• Sri. B.V. Umesh v. The Commissioner of Excise & Others,
Order dated 13.09.2017 passed in WP No.38142/2017,
Paras 5 & 6;
• Smt. Aruna Kumari v. The State of Karnataka & Others,
Order dated 20.07.2021 passed in WP No.13025/2021,
Paras 3 & 4; and
-
• Smt. R. Prabhavathi v. The State of Karnataka & Others,
Order dated 28.11.2013 passed in WP No.44373/2013,
Paras 8 to 10.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent submits that the pendency of the criminal cases
or departmental inquiries against the third respondent was
not a matter which was pleaded before the Tribunal by any
of the parties. It is submitted that it was not on account of
such disciplinary proceedings or criminal cases that the third
respondent was transferred out from Bengaluru and no such
reason was available or stated by the respondents. It is
submitted that it is only at the stage of this writ petition that
such contentions are being raised for the first time by the
petitioner and that the Tribunal had no occasion to consider
any such contentions.
8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for
the officials respondents submits that third respondent is a
person, who was working since 2012 in Bangalore itself. It is
stated that it is the specific case of the State Government
that the transfer order dated 30.06.2023 was an order of
-
general transfer and that there was no issue of premature
transfer at all. It is further submitted that in a case of
transfer on public interest or administrative exigencies no
permission is required and such transfer was liable to be
permitted on the ground of public interest.
9. We have considered the contentions advanced on
all sides. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that there were admittedly
disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings pending
against the third respondent. It is submitted that it was
specifically with regard to financial irregularities committed
by the third respondent while he was holding the post of
Sub-Registrar, BTM Layout that a disciplinary proceeding
was initiated against him on 05.07.2023. It is further
submitted that the petitioner was a person who had suffered
serious medical ailments and the Government is enabled to
grant favourable posting orders in case of necessity in such
cases. It is further contended that the petitioner had sought
a posting in Bangalore on account of the fact that her
husband is working in Bangalore and on the ground of
-
serious medical ailments which was considered by the
Government which is totally permissible in terms of the
transfer guidelines as well. It is further contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that in a case covered by
clause 6 of the transfer guidelines, the operation of clause 9
thereof stands specifically excluded and there would be no
illegality in the transfer.
10. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the fact that there are several disciplinary
proceedings and a criminal case pending against the third
respondent is not disputed by the third respondent. The fact
that a disciplinary inquiry has been entrusted to Upa
Lokayukta by the Government as against the third
respondent on 05.07.2023 is also not specifically denied. It
is the contention that it is in respect of financial irregularities
committed while the third respondent was working in BTM
Layout that the said inquiry has been directed to be
conducted is also not denied. The contention that the third
respondent had been working since 2012 in Bengaluru itself
and that he had approached the Revenue Minister seeking
-
an accommodation in any of the posts in Bengaluru is also
not in dispute.
11. In the above factual situation, we find that the
State was justified in exercising its power to transfer out a
person who was facing disciplinary proceedings in respect of
financial irregularities committed while he was in service as
Sub-Registrar in the BTM Layout. The same cannot be said
to be an illegal exercise of power.
12. Clause 6 of the transfer guidelines dated
07.06.2013, reads as follows:-
"6. Responsibility of Competent Authority: The
Competent Authority, while effecting
transfers/deputations or giving postings may further
ensure that.-
(a) The Government servant against whom there
are serious charges and against whom
departmental proceedings/criminal proceedings
are initiated or pending or prosecution is being
contemplated, shall not be posted to
sensitive/executive posts and should be posted
to non-executive posts where they cannot
interfere with the investigations against them.
Further, a Government servant against whom a
departmental enquiry/criminal case is pending
-
should not be deputed to a post on his
request."
13. This Court in R.S. Pyatigoudar v. The State of
Karnataka & Others, by order dated 24.07.2019 in
W.P.No.202031/2019 (S-KSAT) has held as follows:-
"6. xxxxx The question is whether the reasons
have to be adverted to in the order of transfer itself
or even on plain looking to the circumstances, the
Court can infer that the reasons are available for the
transfer. If apparently reasons are available, the
Court should not interfere in such transfers."
14. Further, in Sri. S.R. Harish v. The State of
Karnataka & Another, by order dated 20.01.2024 in
W.P.No.18062/2023 (S-KSAT), a co-equal bench of this
Court held as under:-
"19. It is not in serious dispute that there are
serious allegations against petitioner herein for which
by order dated 08.06.2023 suspension order was
issued by the Government. When there are serious
allegations against him of misappropriating Rs.3.6
crores as mentioned in order of the Tribunal in
application No.2272/2023 dated 02.11.2023, 1st
respondent should not have transferred him to such
an Executive place. However, ignoring its own
-
guidelines dated 07.06.2013, he has been transferred
vide Annexure-A2.
20. The learned senior counsel for petitioner
has relied on the case of BPL limited and others
Vs. R. Sudhakar and others [(2004) 7 SCC 219].
The principle of law laid down in the said judgment is
not applicable to the facts of the present case.
According to the submission of learned Senior
counsel, since the order of suspension is stayed it
has no effect on the transfer order. It is pertinent
note that, during the pendency of this case, the
Tribunal has dismissed the application No.2272/2023
dated 02.11.2023. Therefore, the said order of stay
was automatically ceases to operate after disposal of
the said application."
15. In the instant case, we notice that it was a
specific case of the official respondents before the Tribunal
that the first of the orders impugned i.e., Annexure-A5
produced before the Tribunal was an order of general
transfer and that the same did not require any specific
reasons to be stated or approval to be obtained from the
Chief Minister. It appears that six persons were transferred
by the said order. It is also contended that the transfer of
the writ petitioner was permissible under the guidelines
-
since the transfer was on medical grounds as well as to join
spouse at Bengaluru. Further, it is contended that the said
order of transfer has been fully given effect to before the
application was moved by the third respondent. The third
respondent, who was facing disciplinary inquiries, had been
moved out by Annexure-A6 order. He apparently had
approached the concerned Minister for favourable posting
orders. The fact that the third respondent has been working
continuously in Bengaluru since 2012 and that there are
disciplinary proceedings pending against him specifically
with regard to his conduct while working as Sub-Registrar,
BTM Layout, Bengaluru, are not under dispute.
16. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the finding of the Tribunal that the orders of transfer
were bad in law since they did not contain reasons for
prematurely transferring the third respondent out is
unjustifiable. In a case like the instant one, where the third
respondent had been working as Sub-Registrar since 2012 in
different offices within the city of Bengaluru itself and where
he has obviously been moved out on account of the
-
disciplinary proceedings pending against him, we are of the
opinion that this was a fit case where the Tribunal ought to
have declined jurisdiction. Further, the necessity for
recording of the reasons for a premature order as provided
in clause-9 cannot apply in a case of this nature. We are of
the opinion that had the true facts of the matter been
brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the outcome of the
application would have been totally different.
17. We are in total agreement with the judgments of
the co-equal benches of this Court in that regard. We are
therefore of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal insofar
as it set aside the orders of transfer of the third respondent
was completely unjustified.
18. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order of the Tribunal in Application
No.3583 of 2023 dated 22.09.2023 shall
stand set aside.
-
(iii) The Application No.3583 of 2023 is
dismissed.
Pending I.A.No.3/2023 for vacating stay is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
