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.55058/2017 (S-TR) BETWEEN :
SRI K. G. AMARNATHA S/O. T. GOVINDAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V. V. TOWER, 9TH FLOOR, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560001.
4. SHRI A. H. NAGARAJ REVENUE OFFICER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, HEBBAGODI, BANGALORE-560099, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 4.12.2017 OF R-1 AT ANNEXURE-K AND THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 4.12.2017 OF R-3 AT ANNEXURE-L AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME; AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AT THE PRESENT PLACE TILL HE COMPLETE HIS TENURE IN TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 7.6.2013.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 04.12.2017, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Vijayapura to Shidlaghatta to the post of Senior Health Inspector, Shidlaghatta, the petitioner has approached this court.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 28.11.2006, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Health Inspector in the Department of Municipal Administration, the respondent No.2. Subsequently, on 30.04.2012, he was promoted to the post of Health Inspector. Since the Health Inspectors were in equal cadre to the post of Chief Officers, the petitioner was posted as Chief Officer, Grade-II, Town Municipality, Pavagada. On 20.06.2016, the petitioner was transferred from Pavagada to the Town Municipality, Vijayapura. Consequently, he reported for duty on 27.07.2016. However, subsequently on 20.07.2017, the petitioner has been transferred from Vijayapura to Shidlaghatta, Chikkaballapura District. Hence, this petition before this court.
3. Mr. Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court:-
Firstly, the transfer of an officer is controlled and guided by the Transfer Policy dated 07.06.2013. According to the said Transfer Policy, a person employed on the post of Group-‘A’ or Group-‘B’ cannot be transferred from the place of posting within a period of three years from the date of posting. However, in the present case, the petitioner is being transferred within a period of one year. Therefore, the transfer order violates the Transfer Policy.
Secondly, the petitioner is being transferred only due to the request made by one Mr. Pillamunishamappa, the MLA, representing Vijayapura Constituency, Devanahalli Taluk. According to Clause 12 of the Transfer Policy dated 07.06.2013, a transfer cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a government servant. Moreover, bringing political pressure for transfer is prohibited. If a government servant brings political pressure, he shall be proceeded with accordingly, and it would be ensured that he will not be posted to such a place. Since the petitioner’s transfer is at the behest of a MLA, there is a political pressure that has been brought in order to relieve the petitioner from Vijayapura and to transfer him to Shidlaghatta.
Thirdly, according to Clause 7 (3) of the Transfer Policy, a premature transfer can only be made in particular cases: only due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons and that too with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. However, in the present case, there are no exceptional circumstance which would justify the petitioner’s premature transfer. Thus, the petitioner’s transfer is absolutely illegal as it is in violation of the Transfer Policy of the State.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Venakatesh R. Dodderi, the learned counsel for the State, submits that the transfer policy dated 07.06.2013 is merely a guideline. It is not mandatory, but only directory in nature.
Secondly, since the MLA, who represents the people of his constituency, was receiving complaints about the petitioner’s conduct he had brought it to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, and had requested that the petitioner be transferred from Vijayapura. According to the learned counsel, since the MLA represents the interest of the people, he is well justified in bringing their complaints to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, and to request for transfer of the officer. In order to buttress this plea, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others [ (2007) 8 SCC 150].
Thirdly, since there were complaints against the petitioner, the petitioner’s case falls under the exceptional condition. Thus, the case is well within Clause 7 (3) of the Transfer Policy. Moreover, because of the exceptional circumstances the Hon’ble Chief Minister had approved the petitioner’s transfer from Vijayapura to Shidlaghatta. In order to buttress this plea, the learned counsel for the State has submitted the copies of orders of the concerned transfer file. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, even prior to transferring the petitioner prematurely, the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was not only sought, but was also granted.
Fourthly, Clause 12 of the Transfer Policy merely states that an officer cannot exert political pressure for seeking his transfer to particular post or place. However, the recommendation made by the local MLA is not at the behest of any person, but is merely a method to bring the grievance of the people to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Therefore, the bar contained in Clause 12 of the Transfer Policy does not come in the way of transferring the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned transfer order.
5. Similarly, Mr. Muralidhar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, has claimed that the petitioner is being transferred only because of the complaints from the local people. Therefore, it is not a case of political interference in transfer. Since it is the duty of respondent No.2 to ensure that the municipal administration is run smoothly, and in the interest of the people, the transfer has been made keeping in mind the administrative exigency, and the interest of the people at large. Hence, the learned counsel has also supported the impugned transfer order.
6. Heard the learned counsel for parties, and perused the impugned transfer order, as well as the records submitted by the learned counsel for the State.
7. Undoubtedly, a Transfer Policy is merely a guideline. It is not binding on the State Government. For, it is not mandatory, but merely directory in nature. The State, as an employer, has to be given sufficient freedom at the joints to transfer its employees from one place to another keeping in mind the administrative exigency, and the interest of the people.
8. Clause 7 (3) of the Transfer Policy is as under:-
Where the transfer is necessitated in particular cases, only due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons, restricting the number of such annual transfers to minimum after recording reasons for the same in writing. Such cases shall be submitted to the Chief Minister without fail and transfer shall be made after obtaining prior approval of the Chief Minister.
The said provision clearly prescribes that in case a transfer needs to be made, beyond the month of June, special reasons or exceptional circumstances must exist. Moreover, the said transfer can be made only after obtaining the prior permission of the Hon’ble Chief Minister.
9. In the case of Mohd. Masood (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that it is the duty of the representative of the people to express the grievance of the people. And if there is any complaint against an officer, the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an officer. Therefore, the MLA is certainly entitled to, and is expected to bring the complaints of the people to the notice of the State Government. Therefore, any transfer made in such circumstances would only be in the interest of the people.
10. Although it is true that Clause 12 of the Transfer Policy bars transfer of a person on the basis of political pressure, but there is no evidence to show that the request made by the local MLA was at the instance of anyone, or even at the instance of respondent No.4. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that the present transfer has been made under political pressure is clearly unacceptable.
11. A bare perusal of the order sheets submitted by the learned counsel for the State clearly reveals that Mr. Pillamunishamappa, MLA, representing Vijayapura Constituency, Devanahalli Taluk, had brought it to the notice of the Government that there were certain complaints from the general public against the petitioner. It is on the basis of the general complaints, he requested that the petitioner be transferred out of Vijayapura.
12. It is, indeed, trite to state that in case there are complaints against an employee, or there are instances where smooth functioning of the administration or of the office, or of the establishment involved, is either disturbed or obstructed by the conduct of the employee, the employer would be well within his/its powers to transfer such an employee/officer. After all, an administration has to run for the benefit of the people and has to function smoothly and harmoniously. Thus, an employee against whom complaints have been received can be transferred. Such a transfer order, being in public interest cannot be deemed to be a punishment. Even there were complaints against the petitioner and exceptional circumstances had arisen and special reasons did exist for the premature transfer of the petitioner.
13. A bare perusal of the order sheet submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner clearly reveals that a request was made for transferring the petitioner. However, while considering the request, some of the Officers of the Department were of the opinion that the petitioner ought not be transferred as it would be a premature transfer. But notwithstanding the contrary opinion expressed by some of the officers of the Department, the file eventually reached the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. After going through the file, the Hon’ble Chief Minister has approved the transfer of the petitioner. The said proposal was approved prior to the transfer order. Thus, both the conditions of Clause 7 (3) of the transfer policy are satisfied in the present case.
14. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned transfer order. Since this petition is devoid of any merit, it is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to cost.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-