IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1425/2019(S-TR) BETWEEN:
SRI. B. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY (PIN NO. 11639), S/O B BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NOW EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O & M DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, (KPTCL) CHITRADURGA-577 504 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. B.S. JAGADEESH (PIN NO.11070) S/O SIKHAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NOW WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), OPERATION & MAINTENANCE DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL) BESCOM, CHITRADURGA-577 504 2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCES) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUVARNA M.L, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. S. SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 23/04/2019 IN WP NO.44488/2018 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This writ appeal is presented by the third respondent in the writ petition challenging order dated 23rd April 2019 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WP No.44488/2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranking in the writ petition.
3. Petitioner was working as Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance Division in Ballari. By official memorandum dated 06.09.2018, respondent-Corporation transferred him to Chitradurga. He was relieved on 20.09.2018 from Ballari and reported for duty at Chitradurga on 22.09.2018.
4. By a subsequent official memorandum dated 26.09.2018, respondent-Corporation again transferred the petitioner back to Ballari. By the very same official memorandum, third respondent (appellant) was re-transferred back to Chitradurga.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the premature transfer, petitioner challenged the subsequent official memorandum dated 26.09.2018 in the instant writ petition. The Hon’ble Single Judge, holding that there was non-compliance of transfer policy, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent –Corporation to issue fresh orders within four weeks. Hence, this appeal.
6. It is settled that premature transfer requires the competent authority to record reasons justifying such transfer as per para-9 (a) (i) to (viii) of the Government Order.
7. On perusal of the records, particularly the letter dated 07.09.2018 written by the District In-Charge Minister to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the manner in which the endorsement has been made by the Chief Minister, the Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded a finding that there was no compliance of para-9(a) (i) to (viii) of the transfer policy and accordingly set-aside the subsequent transfer order.
8. The learned Advocate for the appellant, supporting the subsequent order of transfer submits that appellant has already taken charge at Chitradurga.
9. Sri Nagaprasanna, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner argued in support of the impugned order.
10. In view of specific finding recorded by the Hon’ble Single Judge that there was no compliance of the transfer policy, we are at one with the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge in allowing the writ petition.
Hence, we see no legal infirmity in the impugned order.
11. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-