[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravindra N vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
WP No. 4231 of 2026
Reserved on : 16.02.2026
Pronounced on : 26.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 4231 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAVINDRA N.,
S/O. M. NANJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CIVIL)
KIKKERI POLICE STATION,
K.R PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
NOW REPORTED FOR DUTY AS
Digitally INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
signed by
VINUTHA B S CID SPECIAL WING AND
Location: ECONOMICAL OFFENCES
High Court of ENQUIRY DIVISION,
Karnataka
CARLTON BUILDING,
BENGALURU, AND NOW
RESIDING AT No.305,
F BLOCK, RAHAZA PARK APARTMENT
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 079.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VISHWANATHA BHAT A., ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 4231 of 2026
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE POLICE ESTABLISHMENT BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU-570 010.
5. SRI. JAYARAMA S.N.,
MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME
NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
ON TRANSFERRED TO
KIKKERI POLICE STATION,
K.R. PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 423.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTOON OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/01/2026 IN
A.No.4644/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-D AND TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
K.V. ARAVIND J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.4644/2025,
assailing the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, "the
Tribunal"), is before this Court.
2. Heard Sri Vishwanatha Bhat A., learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional
Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a Police
Inspector (Civil), was posted as Inspector of Police, CID,
Bengaluru, by order dated 19.10.2022. Subsequently, by order
dated 06.10.2025, he was transferred as Inspector of Police,
Kikkeri Police Station, K.R. Pete, Mandya District.
3.1 It is pleaded that the petitioner sought permission to
report for duty on 09.10.2025 and that he joined duty at
Kikkeri Police Station and discharged his functions. It is further
stated that he reported before the Superintendent of Police for
joining duty on 09.10.2025. It is also pleaded that the
petitioner reported for duty at Kikkeri Police Station on
05.11.2025, performed official work, and made entries in the
case diary. However, on 05.11.2025, the transfer order dated
06.10.2025 came to be cancelled, and the services of the
petitioner were continued in the office of the CID, Bengaluru.
3.2 The order dated 06.10.2025 was the subject matter of
challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, noticing that the
petitioner was relieved on 08.10.2025 and that, before he could
join at the transferred post, the transfer order dated
06.10.2025 was cancelled and he was continued at his original
place as Inspector, CID Headquarters, rejected the application.
4. Sri Vishwanatha Bhat A., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was posted as
Inspector of Police, CID, Bengaluru, by order dated 19.10.2022
and was thereafter transferred as Inspector of Police, Kikkeri
Police Station, Mandya District, by order dated 06.10.2025.
4.1 It is contended that the petitioner reported before the
Superintendent of Police, Mandya, and assumed charge as
Inspector of Police, Kikkeri Police Station, on 05.11.2025.
Learned counsel places reliance on Annexure-A4, stated to be
the case diary of Kikkeri Police Station, and submits that the
entries therein, allegedly made by the petitioner, would
establish that he had reported for duty. It is further submitted
that, in view of the petitioner having reported for duty on
05.11.2025, the cancellation of the transfer order on the very
same day, by rescinding the earlier transfer order, is
premature, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law.
5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that
the petitioner was transferred from CID, Bengaluru, to Kikkeri
Police Station, Mandya District, by order dated 06.10.2025. It is
contended that the petitioner failed to report for duty at the
transferred place.
5.1 It is further submitted that the transfer order dated
06.10.2025 was reviewed on 05.11.2025, and the earlier
transfer was cancelled, with the petitioner being continued at
CID, Bengaluru. Learned AGA submits that the petitioner did
not report at the transferred place for nearly one month;
hence, the cancellation of the transfer order is justified and well
within the competence of the competent authority.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers.
7. The petitioner was transferred from CID Headquarters,
Bengaluru, to Kikkeri Police Station, Mandya District, as
Inspector of Police. The said order came to be cancelled by a
subsequent order dated 05.11.2025, whereby the petitioner
was continued at CID, Bengaluru.
7.1 The petitioner contends that he had reported for duty on
09.10.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Mandya
District, and places reliance on Annexure-A3 in support of the
said contention. It is further contended that, since he was
posted in the place of Smt. Revathi N. at Kikkeri Police Station
and she was relieved only on 05.11.2015, he could report to
the said station only on 05.11.2025. The aforesaid submission
is unfounded. A perusal of the transfer order dated 06.10.2025
would indicate as under:
" ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಘಟ ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಅ ಾ ಗಳನು ಕತ ವ ಂದ
!ಡುಗ"ೆ$ೊ&', (ಾವ)*ೇ +ೇರು- ೆ ಾಲವನು ಉಪ/ೕ0' ೊಳ1*ೆ
2ಯು45$ೊ&ಸ6ಾದ ಸ7ಳದ89 ಕತ ವ ೆ ಕೂಡ6ೇ ವರ :ಾ; ೊಳ 1ವಂ<ೆ ಸೂ=ಸುವ)ದು
>ಾಗೂ !ಡುಗ"ೆ$ೊಂಡ / ವರ :ಾ;ದ ಬ$ೆ? ಈ ಕAೇ $ೆ BಾಲCಾ ವರ ಸ89ಸುವ)ದು."
8. In view of the above, the petitioner was required to
report for duty forthwith, without awaiting a separate relieving
order or availing any joining time. There is no material to
substantiate the contention of the petitioner that he was posted
in the place of Smt. Revathi N. at Kikkeri Police Station and
that she was relieved only on 05.11.2025, thereby enabling
him to assume charge on the said date. The said plea is
unsupported by any documentary evidence.
9. Annexure-A3, stated to be a letter addressed to the
Superintendent of Police, Mandya District, cannot be accepted
at face value. The said document does not bear any
acknowledgment evidencing its receipt in the office of the
Superintendent of Police. In the absence of proof of submission
and acknowledgment, the document remains a self-serving
piece of correspondence.
10. The petitioner has also relied upon Annexure-A4, said to
be the case diary of Kikkeri Police Station, contending that he
made entries therein after joining duty on 05.11.2025.
However, there is no material placed on record to establish that
Annexure-A4 is indeed the official case diary or that the entries
therein were made by the petitioner. In the absence of such
proof, Annexure-A4 does not advance the case of the
petitioner. The further contention that Smt. Revathi N. was
relieved from Kikkeri Police Station only on 05.11.2025 is
equally without any substantiation.
11. It is not in dispute that the transfer order dated
06.10.2025 came to be cancelled on 05.11.2025 before it was
given effect to. Unless the transfer order dated 06.10.2025 had
been acted upon and the petitioner had assumed charge at the
transferred place, the cancellation of the said order and
continuation of the petitioner at CID, Bengaluru, cannot be
construed as a re-transfer in violation of the prescribed
minimum tenure.
12. When a Government servant has not reported to the
transferred place and, prior thereto, the transfer order itself is
cancelled, it cannot be termed as a premature transfer, as no
transfer in fact had taken effect.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in Smt. P.V. Poornima v. State of
Karnataka and Others [W.P. No. 2661/2020, decided on
29.07.2020], to contend that modification or cancellation of a
transfer order, once issued, is impermissible and contrary to
the Transfer Guidelines. However, it is to be noted that in the
said case, the transfer orders were modified after the
Government servants had reported at their respective
transferred places and had assumed charge. The factual matrix
in the aforesaid decision is thus distinguishable and not
identical to the facts of the present case.
14. The reliance placed on the decision of this Court in T.
Suneel Kumar, IPS v. State of Karnataka and Others,
reported in 2013 (3) Kar. L.J. 193 (DB), is also misplaced.
In the said case, the Division Bench considered the role of the
Police Establishment Board and the issue relating to the
minimum tenure of police officers. In the present case, the
transfer order came to be cancelled before it was given effect
to. Hence, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision
have no application to the facts of the present case.
15. The Tribunal, having considered these aspects, has rightly
held that the transfer order dated 06.10.2025 was never given
effect to and that the same was modified on 05.11.2025. It has
further held that the issuance of the transfer order and its
subsequent modification fall within the competence of the
Police Establishment Board in exercise of powers under the
Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2012.
16. In the light of the foregoing reasons, we find that the
order passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and does not
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
- 10 -
17. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit,
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
