IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.40806/2017 (S-TR) BETWEEN :
SRI A. P. ASHOK S/O. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, JUNIOR ENGINEER (E), WORKING AT:
SATHYAMANGALA SECTION, CITY SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN-573201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADV.) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCES), THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. SRI B. K. NINGAPPA MAJOR, JUNIOR ENGINEER (E), WORKING AT:
66/11 K. V. STATION, KPTCL, DUDDA, (T.L & S.S. DIVISION), KPTCL, HASAN), HASAN-573118. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM UNNI, ADV. FOR SRI S. SRIRANGA, ADV. FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI RAGHAVENDRA H. S., ADV. FOR C/R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.7.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A1 PASSED BY R-2 AS THE SAME BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 18.07.2017, whereby he has been transferred from Sathyamangala Section-5, Operation & Maintenance Division, CESCOM, Hassan, to 66/11, K.V. Station, KPTCL, Dudda, Hassan. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2017, whereby the order dated 21.07.2017, by which the transfer order dated 18.07.2017 was recalled, has also been recalled by the respondent.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 18.11.2009, the petitioner was selected on the post of Junior Engineer (Ele) by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (“KPTCL”, for short). On 13.11.2014, the petitioner was transferred from Mysore Rural Division to Satyamangala Section Sub-station, Hassan. He has continuously worked from 13.11.2014 till 18.07.2017. By the impugned transfer order 18.07.2017, he was transferred, as mentioned above, from Satyamangala Section to Dudda in Hassan District. However, by order dated 21.07.2017, the transfer order dated 18.07.2017 was recalled, and the petitioner was directed to continue to discharge his duties at the Satyamangala Section. But, suddenly by order dated 28.07.2017, the respondent has recalled the order dated 21.07.2017, and has directed the petitioner to report at Dudda. Hence, this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Srikanth Patil . K, the learned counsel for petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly the respondent-KPTCL has adopted the Transfer Policy of the Government of Karnataka dated 07.06.2013. According to the Transfer Policy, a person belonging to the Group-‘C’ post should not be transferred within four years from the date of his posting. In case he were to be transferred within a period of four years, then the transfer is a premature one. The only exception given in the said Transfer Policy is that, a person can be prematurely transferred only on exceptional circumstances, or for special reasons and such transfer can be made only after obtaining the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister.
Secondly, in the present case, the petitioner is transferred within a period of three years. Since he belongs to Group-‘C’ post, he cannot be transferred prematurely. Thirdly, neither any exceptional circumstances arose for premature transfer of the petitioner, nor any prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was sought by the respondent. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the impugned transfer order dated 18.07.2017, and the order dated 28.07.2017 are in violation of the Transfer Policy.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sriranga, the learned counsel for KPTCL, submits that the Transfer Policy is merely directory in nature. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to transfer an employee as and when required for administrative exigencies, or in the interest of the people. Therefore, the respondent is justified in prematurely transferring the petitioner from Satyamangala Section to Dudda. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
6. Undoubtedly, a Transfer Policy is a guideline.
Hence, it is merely directory in nature, and not mandatory in nature. However, merely because it is directory in nature, it does not empower the respondents to transfer an employee on caprice or whims. Since the Transfer Policy contains a procedure for prematurely transferring a person, and since the procedure has been established by the Law, obviously, the procedure needs to be followed. According to Clause 7 (3) of the Transfer Policy dated 07.06.2013, a premature transfer is permitted, provided there are exceptional circumstances, or for special reasons, and provided, the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister has been sought by the concerned department. The procedure has been laid in order to be fair to the employees, and in order to curtail the power of transfer of an employee from one place to another. Hence, undoubtedly, the procedure established by the Transfer Policy dated 07.06.2013 has to be followed for all times. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed just three years at Satyamangala Sub-division. He has still one more year to go before completing four years of posting at one place. The period of four years will be over on 12.11.2018. However, the petitioner is being prematurely transferred from Satyamangala Section to Dudda.
7. The respondents have not placed any evidence to bring their case within the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Clause 7 (3) of the Transfer Policy. They have neither established the fact that there are exceptional circumstances, or special reasons for transferring the petitioner, nor established the fact that they have obtained the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister with regard to the petitioner’s transfer. Thus the transfer order dated 18.07.2017 is not in consonance with the Clause 7 (3) of the Transfer Policy. Hence, the said impugned order is legally unsustainable.
8. Even for recalling the order dated 21.07.2017 by order dated 28.07.2017, the latter order does not give any reasons for recalling the order dated 21.07.2017. Hence, the order dated 28.07.2017 has been passed whimsically and capriciously. Therefore, the said order is legally unsustainable in the eye of the law.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 18.07.2017, and 28.07.2017 are set aside. No order as to cost.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE