IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.52109/2018(S-TR) BETWEEN SRI. L. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE LINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPOT MANAGER BOOMANNAHALLI WHOLESALE DEPOT BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED BANGALORE-560 068.
(BY SRI. M. S. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND 1. KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA BANGALORE-560 052.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED NO.16/1, MILLERS TANK BED AREA BANGALORE-560 052.
3. SRI S K ANJANEYA MAJOR FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT DISTRICT OFFICE, KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560 041.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M N MUNIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI M SHANKAR RANGAREJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRANSFER DTD:14.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 [ANNEXURE-G] IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND THE R-3 ARE CONCERNED.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are working as Senior Assistants/Deputy Managers in the respondent- Corporation. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of transfer issued by the General Manager of the Corporation at Annexure-G, dated 14.11.2018.
2. Learned Counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagwat appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law since it has been issued by the General Manager of the Corporation who is not empowered to issue the transfer order in terms of the transfer policy and guidelines of the respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel points out to the Karnataka Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited transfer guidelines dated 29.05.2014, at Annexure-H. Clause (2) (a) provides that whenever premature transfer of the employee and even in cases of the general transfer, made after the minimum periods specified in the guidelines are to be issued, the same shall be issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation with prior approval of the Chairman of the Corporation. Learned counsel further points out to clause (f) of the guidelines which would provide that any employee who has crossed the age of 59 years 6 months and has lesser than 6 months for superannuation, shall not be posted as Manager of a Depot or Marketing Assistant at Depot.
3. In this regard, it is submitted that the impugned order has been issued by the General Manager, who is not empowered to do so and coupled with the fact that prior approval of the Chairman has not been taken before issuance of the impugned order of transfer. Moreover, it is submitted that the 3rd respondent is due to retire on 30.04.2019, which means the 3rd respondent had lesser than 6 months for superannuation when the impugned order was issued. Therefore, it is submitted that on both counts the impugned orders required to be set-aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that along with statement of objections filed by the Corporation the Delegation of Powers of the officer effective from 01.04.2010 has been placed of record. According to the delegation of powers, the power to issue transfer order has been delegated to the General Manager. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has been working in the present post from 19.11.2015. Therefore, even according to the transfer guidelines, the petitioner has completed the minimum period in the post and is liable for transfer.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the 3rd respondent was relieved from the previous post by virtue of the transfer order. But, since an interim order was issued by this Court, the 3rd respondent was not able to take charge of the post under the impugned transfer order.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides and on perusing the writ papers, it is seen that the delegation of powers as submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent, was issued on 01.04.2000, brought to effect on the same day, while the transfer guidelines as pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was issued subsequently, on 29.05.2014. Obviously, the subsequent, transfer guidelines will hold the field having taken into consideration the delegation of powers given as on 01.04.2000. Even assuming that the General Manager had the power to transfer the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the prior approval of the Chairman of the Corporation has not been taken.
7. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent is due to retire on 30.04.2019, therefore, even on that count, the 3rd respondent could not have been posted as Manager of a depot in terms of the transfer policy and guidelines of the Corporation. In the light of the above, the writ petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed while quashing the order dated 14.11.2018, at Annexure-G to the extent of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.
Needless to observe that the respondent-Corporation is free to pass a transfer order with respect to the petitioner in terms of the transfer policy and guidelines as noted above.
SD/- JUDGE DL