IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.870 OF 2019 (S-TR) BETWEEN SRI MOHANESHA KUMAR S/O SRI RAJACHAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.27, 11 CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560079.
(BY SRI SAMPATH BAPAT, ADVOCATE) AND KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, KSFC BHAVAN, NO11/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH MEMO DATED 02.01.2019 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is working as Deputy Manager (F&A), in the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner was working at Rajajinagar Branch Office, Bengaluru, when the impugned communication dated 02.01.2019 was made by the respondent-Corporation directing the petitioner to temporarily work at the branch office in Chitradurga. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order and is therefore before this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is an order of transfer and is in violation of the transfer policy of the respondent-Corporation. A copy of the transfer policy for the financial year 2018-19 has been produced by the petitioner along with memo dated 08.02.2019. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has been transferred in the middle of the academic year, which is opposed to the transfer policy. Clause-I of the Transfer Policy would provide that the transfers should ordinarily be resorted to between 15th May and 30th July each year or as extended by the State Government. The petitioner has also contended that the impugned order is colourable exercise of power and the same has been issued with malice. The employees who have been working in the same branch for many years and those who are at the fag end of the career, have not been transferred, whereas a differential treatment has been meted out to the petitioner only with an intention to harass the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-corporation would submit that the impugned communication cannot be treated as a transfer since it has been made clear that the petitioner is temporarily assigned to work in the branch office at Chitradurga. The learned counsel would also submit that Managing Director, is empowered to transfer or place an employee at a new place of posting in the interest of the corporation and in exigencies. The learned counsel for the respondent has also filed a memo dated 15.04.2019 stating that the petitioner was required to work at the branch office at Chitradurga on account of certain exigencies and the respondent will review the work assigned to the petitioner during general transfer, which usually takes place in the month of May to July, as noted above. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has not reported to the branch office at Chitradurga, thereby violating the directions of the respondent-corporation.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent and a statement made in the memo dated 15.04.2019 that the impugned communication requiring the petitioner to work for a temporary period at branch office at Chitradurga will be reviewed during the general transfer between 15th May, 2019 to 30th July 2019, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is required to follow the instructions given by the respondent-corporation in the interest of the respondent-corporation. The respondent-
corporation will be bound by the statement made in the memo dated 15.04.2019 and by virtue of the fact that it has been made clear by the respondent-corporation that impugned communication is not a order of transfer. Therefore, the respondent-corporation will have to reconsider and pass an order with respect to the petitioner in the light of the statements made by the corporation that the petitioner has not been transferred to Chitradurga.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE