Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

B L Narasimha Murthy vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|18 November, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 50151 OF 2019 (S-TR) BETWEEN:
B L NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O B LAKSHMINARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEL.), BESCOM, O AND M DIVISION, KENGERI, BANGALORE.
(BY MS. M H SUVARNA, AND SRI. PUTTE GOWDA K, ADVOCATES M NAGARASANNA ASSTS) AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009, … PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE,K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. T SRIKANTH, MAJOR BY AGE, AWAITING POSTING KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 23RD OCTOBER 2019 AND QUASH OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 23RD OCTOBER, 2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 23RD OCTOBER,2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT PETITION) ISSUED BY THE R1 AND R2 RESPECTIVELY AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner, an employee of the public sector undertaking namely BESCOM is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Official Memorandum dated 23.10.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-N, whereby he has been transferred without giving him posting. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, the transfer order cannot be faltered since it is made in the exigency of the service; the Apex Court in B.VARADHA RAO Vs. STATE Of KARNATAKA, AIR 1986 SC 1955 has held that the transfer is an ordinary incident of service and that the grievance if any, should be obtained from the employer himself by making an appropriate representation.
3. This apart, subsequent to the transfer, vide Show Cause Notice dated 12.11.2019, a copy whereof is placed on record by the contesting respondents now an enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner as to some wild allegations; the same reads as under:
“²æà ©.J¯ï £ÀgÀ¹AºÀ ªÀÄÆwð, ¦£ï: 11621, PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï(«) DzÀ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¸ÀASÉå: PÀ«¥æÀ¤¤/©15/85604/2018-19 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23.10.2019 gÀ°è PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£Á «¨sÁUÀ, ¨É¸ÁÌA, PÉAUÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°èAzÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉUÉƽ¹ ¸ÀܼÀ ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÁV PÀ«¥æÀ¤¤, ¤UÀªÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÛÀzÉ. DzÀgÉ vÁªÀÅ CzÉà ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV CwgÉÃPÀzÀ ªÀvÀð£É vÉÆÃj ªÉƨÉʯï zÀÆgÀªÁt ¸ÀASÉå: 99720-66658gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ‘ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ’ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ¤UÀªÀÄ PÀZÉÃjUÉ MvÀÛqÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀA¢gÀÄwÛÃj. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ªÉƨÉʯï zÀÆgÀªÁt ¸ÀASÉå: 97394-37026gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀÄ£À: PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr¹ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¨É¸ÁÌA£À PÉAUÉÃj PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£Á «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ªÀÄgÀÄvÉÊ£Áw¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä MvÛÀqÀ ºÁQ¹gÀÄwÛÃj.”
4. Ordinarily when an employee is transferred to another office or place, he needs to be shown posting which is not forthcoming from the impugned order; an employee after transfer cannot be kept idle and without posting.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; although the transfer order is sustained, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the 1st and 2nd respondents to give posting to the petitioner within an outer limit of two weeks, failing which the said respondents shall run the risk of being proceeded against for contempt of this Court.
It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall forthwith handover the charge of office to the third respondent, since the challenge to the transfer order is negatived.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

B L Narasimha Murthy vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
18 November, 2019
Judges
  • Krishna S Dixit