IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.12166/2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI V.N. VEERABHADRASWAMY, S/O. LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, JOINT COMMISSIONER, BBMP, YALAHANKA ZONE, AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 092.
R/AT NO.19, C ROAD, 2ND PHASE, IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP, R.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE – 98. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI V.R. SARATHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, (MAHANAGARA PALIKE) VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE, K.R.C. CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 2. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI B.S. GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.1190/2019, DATED 12TH MARCH 2019 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.1190/2019 AS PRAYED FOR THEREBY SET-ASIDING THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 26.02.2019 (ANNEXURE-A7) (TO THE APPLICATION NO.1190/2019 AT ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though this writ petition is listed for orders, with the consent of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3, it is heard finally.
2. This writ petition assails the legality and correctness of order dated 12/03/2019, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for the sake of convenience) in Application No.1190/2019.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was originally appointed in the Department of Industries and Commerce and was working as Joint Director, which is a post equivalent to Joint Commissioner in respondent No.3/Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (“BBMP”). His services were placed at the disposal of respondent No.2/Urban Development Department and the petitioner was posted as Joint Commissioner, Bommanahalli, in respondent No.3/BBMP vide notification dated 07/02/2017. He reported for duty on 10/02/2017. Subsequently, petitioner was posted as Joint Commissioner, Yalahanka Zone, Bangalore vide notification dated 21/01/2019. He assumed charge on 30/01/2019, but on 26/02/2019, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order repatriating the petitioner to his parent department on the basis of certain allegations. The said order of repatriation was assailed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 12/03/2019, has dismissed the application on the premise that the repatriation of the petitioner was after completion of two years of deputation in BBMP and was in accordance with the transfer guidelines dated 07/06/2013 applicable to Class - I Officers. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this writ petition.
4. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.
5. The main grievance of the petitioner as ventilated by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has construed the impugned order dated 26/02/2019 as if it is an order of transfer/deputation coming within the scope of guidelines issued by the State Government on 07/06/2013 and on the premise that the petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that his deputation in BBMP had not yet completed two years. He submits that, that was neither the tenor of the application filed before the Tribunal nor was that the main grievance of the application of the petitioner.
6. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 26/02/2019 (Annexure – A7) proceeds on the basis of certain allegations being made against the petitioner and in that background repatriated the petitioner to his parent department. The contention is, such an order of repatriation to the parent department cannot be made by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) of the BBMP. That it is only the parent department, which has issued an order of deputation, which can also issue an order repatriating an officer from the post in which he is working on deputation to the parent department and on that sole ground impugned order dated 26/02/2019 ought to be quashed. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal may also be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the impugned order dated 26/02/2019 may be construed as a recommendation being made to the State Government and the same shall be considered and an appropriate order could be passed on the said recommendation and at this stage, it may not be necessary to quash the impugned order dated 26/02/2019.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/BBMP submits that an appropriate order may be made in this writ petition.
9. Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and on perusal of the material on record, particularly the impugned order dated 26/02/2019, we find that respondent No.3 in fact, has passed an order directing repatriation of the petitioner to the parent department. In terms of Government Order dated 11/11/2011(Annexure – A11) at clause 5 thereof, a person on deputation who has to be repatriated to the parent department could be done so on a recommendation to be made by the authority who is in-charge of the person on deputation in the deputed post which reads as under:
“©.©.JA.¦. UÉ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À®àlÖ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ »vÁ¸ÀQÛUÉ ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ°è CxÀªÁ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀV 0¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÖ°è CxÀªÁ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjAzÀ zÀÆgÀÄUÀ½zÀÝ°è CAvÀºÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjPÉ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ »vÀzÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀ«®èªÉAzÀÄ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀ°è, CAvÀºÀ C¢üPÁj/£ËPÀgÀgÀ ¤AiÉÆÃd£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢ü ¥ÀÆtðªÁV®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CxÀªÁ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ/C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¤AiÉÆÃd£Á CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JµÉÖ ¤UÀ¢ü¥ÀrEzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀÈE¯ÁSÉUÉ »AwgÀÄV¸À®Ä DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ 0¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”
10. In the circumstances, respondent No.3 could not have suo moto passed an order by himself directing repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department even on the premise that there are certain allegations against him. Respondent No.3 could have only recommended repatriation to respondent Nos.1 and 3 who could have then applied their mind as to whether repatriation was necessary or not. In the circumstances, we find that justice would be met in the instant case by construing the impugned order dated 26/02/2019 as only a recommendation is made to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall now consider the impugned order dated 26/02/2019 as only a recommendation is made and pass orders in accordance with law, as to, whether, petitioner has to be repatriated to the parent department or not.
11. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed. Writ petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
It is needless to observe that respondent No.2, on considering the order dated 26/02/2019, shall pass orders in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*