IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.55089 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVASA T. R. SON OF LATE RAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL RANGE, BENGALURU, RESIDING AT NO.69, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 079.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR V. BAJANTRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RANGE, NO.5, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL RANGE, NO.5, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.
5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIJAYAPURA CIRCLE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 135.
6. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CIVIL RIGHT ENFORCEMENT CELL, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
7. SRI MANJUNATH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 110.
... RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ANITHA N., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.7142/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as the Police Sub-Inspector (Civil). Thereafter, when the petitioner was posted to work at Vishwanathapura Police Station, he was placed under suspension, on the ground that he misbehaved with his senior officials. The same was also widely reported in the social media.
2. The suspension was challenged in Application No.5119 of 2018, before the Karnataka State Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. Thereafter, by the order dated 06.08.2018, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was transferred from Vishwanathapura Police Station to Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Bengaluru (‘CRE Cell’ for short). Therefore, the application before the Tribunal was dismissed as being infructuous.
3. In the interregnum, respondent No.7 was transferred to the place of the petitioner and he was transferred to Civil Enforcement Cell. Challenging the same, the instant application was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the same. Hence, the instant petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the transfer is premature and hence interference is called for. The Tribunal while considering the material on record came to the conclusion that in order to conduct a smooth enquiry against the applicant, he was transferred from ‘mischief area’ and posted to CRE Cell. That the same is in the interest of justice to ensure that there is an appropriate investigation against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct against his superiors. Therefore, the transfer is only in administrative exigency to ensure that the investigation is just and proper. For the aforesaid reasons, the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is just and appropriate and does not call for interference. Therefore, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ