IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.50209 OF 2019 (S-TR) BETWEEN:
MS. H.P. RAMADEVI, D/O PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS, BANGALORE SOUTH CIRCLE, BESCOM, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. , K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. GENERAL MANAGER (A & HR), BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. S.S.NATARAJ, MAJOR BY AGE, WORKING AS DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS, BUDGET AND RESOURCES, O/O FINANCIAL ADVISIOR, ACCOUNTS AND RESOURCES SECTION, CORPORATE OFFICE, KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; SRI. P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 28.10.2019 (UNDER ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION) ISSUED BY THE R.1 AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner, a Deputy Controller of Accounts in the respondent-KPTCL is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the transfer order dated 28.10.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure – L, whereby he has been displaced by accommodating the 4th respondent-Nataraj herein. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, have filed their Objection Statement and resist the Writ Petition.
2. Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of both the counsel taken up for final disposal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is of a considered opinion that the impugned transfer order needs to be invalidated for the following reasons:
(a) the Transfer Guidelines dated 7.6.2013, a copy whereof is at Annexure – E to the Writ Petition are held to have statutory force and violation thereof becomes justiciable vide Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chandru H.N V/s State of Karnataka and others, (2011) 3 KLJ 562 FB; the retention period of personnel of the petitioner cadre is two years; if this period is reckoned from the date of last posting of the petitioner i.e., 22.02.2019, arithmetically it falls short of the prescribed period;
(b) the contention of the 4th respondent that the impugned transfer precedes a approval by the Chief Minister of the State and therefore, the same is unassailable is liable to be rejected inasmuch as for cutting short the retention period, prior approval of the Chief Minister is one of the pre- conditions there being other too going by the text of Transfer Guidelines; unless one of the eight conditions enumerated in Guideline No.9 is complied with, the prior approval of the Chief Minister pales into insignificance; the condition providing for prior approval is not a clause of Veto;
(c) the KPTCL recommended transfer of 4th respondent to the place of the petitioner on a specific fact matrix that the said employee is an “elected office bearer” of the Employees Association; this itself is apparently false inasmuch as para 9 (vi) provides protection only to an “elected member” of the Association and not a “co-opted member” like the petitioner therefore, the case of the 4th respondent does not fall within the parameters of these Transfer Guidelines, as rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner; the learned Panel Counsel for the respondent- KPTCL has made available the original record which this court perusal finds out this fact.
4. The contention of Sri.Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for the 4th respondent that even in cases which are de hors, the conditions enumerated in para 9 of the Transfer Guidelines, once approval of the Chief Minister is obtained, the transfer gets immunity from challenge, appears to be too farfetched an argument; that cannot be countenanced in a system governed by the rule of law; as already mentioned above, the Chief Minister is not granted Veto power; the Transfer Guidelines have been promulgated by the Government as a matter of Policy, Government too is bound by them; an argument to the contrary amounts to placing the Chief Minister above the rule of law, which this court is afraid to accept.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; the impugned order is quashed; the petitioner shall be restored to the position which he had held pursuant to his posting order dated 22.02.2019.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc