-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 315T DAY OF JULY 2009
PRESENT %""' nu
THE HONBLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN,_c4H1E'F'3DSfT1CEV'_~ ,1 u
AND a 'V 4' '_
THE HON'BLE MR.}USTIV'Cv3E_V.(fi--'.''S'ABHA'H'I'FEi''::_..,. }
W.P. No.1O877/2OO'9AR(S~.KAT5'
w.R. No.11"634/2GO:9:(SHKAT)-._
BETWEEN: If V
SRI v B
S/O SR1 BEji"IM"i'~RP.PA "
AGED A8.0'L!T}_56 YEARS,
ADEJI"TIQNj~§\L S'i;£'PERINTEND'E'N"T
KAR'-JEVAR, '
KANNA DISTR§,CT "*;.
PETITIONER
a("3»,:_:é§"ri'.:E"§A1%13_H M DODOAMANI, ADv., )
1; STATE OF KARNATAKA
A_ T REP'v...,"BY ITS SECRETARY
"TO GOVERNMENT,
* --_HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-01
-3-
QRDER
These Writ Petitions under Articies 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of india are filed by respondent
Application No.5213/2008 connected with
i\io.415/2009 on the file of the Karnataka l ‘
Tribunai (hereinafter called ‘the
aggrieved by the order dated 20’.0.3..2009_,’WhereVi’n
has allowed the applications andléxdhiiasphedl”thxe’implJgned
order dated 23.10.2008~–..(‘2s;nnexu;V;’el’. Application
No.5213/2008) and._the ord.er._d»at’ed f;6.’o.i1.&:§’i:;o9 (Annexure
‘A3′ respectively and
directed the autho–riVti’e’s~.to’lco’nti.nue the Applicant at Karwar
as per the observiations made in the order.
3_._lAV”:’hp_e 5″””«vre.spondent herein filed application
Vhislo.58213/2.008″»hefore the KAT averring that the applicant
is vtrorkiéngv«avs.’j_’,i§.tlditional Superintendent of Police (non–
I95), Duepartmvent of Police, Karwar District. The applicant
wlasAVVtra.nsferred to the present place from Davanagere by
dated 24.07.2008 and he reported to duty in the
‘dpresent place of work on 28.07.2008. Within three months
U’
an
of reporting for duty at Karwar, the first respondent –
State of Karnataka has issued the order dated 23.10.2008
transferring the applicant to the office of the
Bangalore and in turn, transferred the St” respo,n’d’e–n’t–…i:ri.
the application (writ petitioner) in place of at ”
Karwar. Being aggrieved by the said
application No.5213/2008 was»r’fil_ed conftendirtgi’that:
said order of transfer was notH0’i’n:’accordantewith the
guidelines issued for the’cu’t–ren–t a§:avdemic”year and it was
not preceded by the proceediings if:»he°Ca’d:Vr;e– ivlanagernent
Authority and sa._ifne:;1iwas.p’renjature..:v*fh’e–applicant sought
for quasfi_ing_ transfer dated 23.10.2008
issued by thefirst null and void in so far as
__it reiaytesfv to the V”a~p_p:lVican:’l: and the fifth respondent in the
IA’-.appiic,atio_n.«A_
said application was resisted by the
ifif”:r”v4.”‘re’spondents contending that the order of transfer was
and was in the interest of administrative exigency
00 ljjyandf: no ground whatever is made out for interfering with
the order of transfer.
\}
-5-
4, On 31.10.2008, the KAT, after hearing both
the Appiicant and the Caveator, passed an interim_4vo.rd-ef’r~.._V
of stay staying the operation of the
23.10.2008 in so far as it relates to htlfieappi_.i’ca’rit:andsthe 0′
fifth respondent in the Application.
5. Being aggrieyed interim
order dated 31.10.2008′;–….V:’chye”-V.fifth”°’respcndent in the
Application (writ ‘p.ev’t’iti0:i’:«:-iii’)… jjriieV’d.f..yw’.’i=i.1’g:.iii§i.o;ft’14o12/2008
before this Cou.r§t..44 disposed of
by this a direction that
appropriate the petitioner therein (5″‘
respondenté”ini *the”* is to file statement of
Vobjectiens aiong “wi.th’anapplication to vacate the interim
Zdisordergrarittecthiots31.10.2008. Further, this Court directed
the’*i5riyiiLj’i’;.§§’iv’..V.__ttitiexpedite the hearing of the main
V Appiicfatioriiitseiff.
6. ” ‘Respondent No.5 in Application No.5213/2008
«..fiif-ed»application for vacating stay and the matter was
up for final hearing. During the course of hearing,
\)>
new
it was brought to the notice of the KAT by the Government
Pleader that bye–elections were declared at Karwar and
Principal Secretary, Home Department, has req_crest’ed’.i’e:’to’
transfer the Appiicant in View of the_gene’ral”‘*poel.icy
eiection of Election Commission of I”ndiai”as the “Ap’pl’icant.’~:»::ii_’
hails from Uttara Kannada Districtwwith “Anix<oE.a as"'hvis~«h.ome
town.
7. On 04.12.2008.,_i<AT, after hearing tl*'1'e-"parties
and in view of the parties passed an
interim order as ifoliows:
The agreed upon by the
partie’s__a’re as~.foilow_s’:«.._
V “l”he-. _____ Applicant shall make a
_ f.representat,ion to the Cadre Management
-.iA.uitho:’ri.ty ofnor before 11.12.2008.
The Cadre Management Authority
shalhconsider the representation to be filed by
Aiellthe Applicant and pass appropriate orders in
Mlaclcordance with law keeping in mind the
transfer guidelines dated 22.11.2001 and
K}
-7-
07.07.2008 on or before 10.01.2009. The said
report shall be sent to this Tribunal aiong with”.
the proceedings of Cadre Managemen.t«g’_’»
Authority and the I-ion’ble Chief Minister’s._ii7’i’t
approval, if any.
iii) The Appiicant shaii Li-wand g.go\_g:’e’:’ ”
charge to the 5″‘ respondent on
06.12.2008 in view or the i_:”.i.e’jc:ti.oh_Po:ity ttsigncéi
the Applicant is ‘na’Vtive–‘_’ of..l’A’nko’l’a,_ Karwar
District), who is not sup_po’séld to.,.,dw.o;i’i3r__’_;at that
place)
ivilll passed by this
Tribt}nai”rii.on “§'{1:’;10′;?.:G084′._siialII be kept in
abeyance til: ‘
v)au” rn’atter shall be kept pending
orders ——– of the Cadre Management
‘ .0″A1,:t.hVo«rityVéwh_ich is going to be passed.
” . .6. of the above terms, for which ali
the v’parti’es are agreeable, pending disposal of
_ Vggthevapplication, we hereby direct the CMA to
. _gptfss necessary orders regarding the transfer of
the Appiicant and the St” respondent are
concerned. List this case on 12.01.2009. ”
U
-9-
the KAT, respondent No.5 in the application before the KAT
has preferred this Writ Petition.
10. We have heard the learned counsel”‘a.iJp£§_a.riirig*
for the petitioner and the learned :coiin’sel ‘a_ppea:riing,VVf’oVr
the caveator – respondent No.5 and. learnedglv.’Acldition4ai~~_V”
Government Advocate appearing “for”irespond_ents’.=1iwtovlldw} A
11. Having regard–._to the c’onte~n§rti,.id’i2.s_ of the learned
. counsel appearing for the….parties,this””C’o’i£§t’had directed
the learned to ascertain
as to whe_thei*- and the fifth respondent
could be given lposting’.Vas’:t’i’§.e’writ petitioner had not been
_,Vgiven_p’oVsting andlfllihe ivas awaiting posting. Learned
V”‘i_AdAd’iti_,oria_l’fiovernment Advocate has produced the order of
transfe-_r«li ‘AVi:3;’;i.”§.07.2009, wherein the petitioner, who
was a’waitingv”‘transfer order, has been transferred as
AMu”Vi-44’Sctipe.ri,ntevn”dent of Police (civii, non-IPS), DCRE,
i,i3a’ngiaeo’re.
\.}’*
M10.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned order passed by the KAT is
not in accordance with law and the KAT couid not have
interfered with the order of transfer, which had.f”b.een”‘–,_
passed in the interest of exigency of ser’Jice4’:’n”a’nd
wherefore, the order passed by the ¥_(,A.T,__is iiahl’e”
aside.
13. Learned counsel ap.pea.rirrg_n for “‘respo§ndent
No.5 argued in support of–Vthe”ord,e;r by the KAT.
-A Government Advocate
appearing «for__ respon’der:«ts”‘_.»i.:t’Ato 4 submitted that the
.__impuggne’d’ order”‘is.._VVjustinfied and the petitioner is given
atV’>’EAanng’aio_re as he was awaiting posting.
have given careful consideration to the
it’Al.’iiécdntentions’ of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and scrutinized the rnateria} on record.
\3
-11-
16. The material on record would clearly show that
the Applicant before the KAT (respondent No.5 herein)._w«a_s~..vv
working in Davanagere as Additional SuperintendentfoiT.-.2’~-
Police (non IPS) and he was transferredy_’to Ka’rwar;;.i)tta’_ra
Kannada District, by order of transfer
and he took charge of the said ‘p:_ostzon “2’8.:CJ7.2i}ti’8~».iavn.deVetiie A
impugned order of transferAp_.._l:h:as_ aideeri’ on
23.10.2008 i.e., within date of the
Applicant assuming char:g’e”etf’: material on
record would iolflllthe Applicant to
the office by order dated
23.10.2003 within three months from
the date of his iiposltinguat itheéépresent post i.e., Karwar by
” _VVorderVdlated 24.O7.V_2DlO8V:and the same was not preceded
the of’«-tvhe Cadrei/ianagement Authority. Having
ve’i’i_fie.d_«1tlhe”‘_~o_ridjn’al records, the KAT has held that the
_orderl'”of ti–%ansf’er dated 23.10.2008 is iiiegai and cannot be
Hit’it’~u’s.i.t:sttai.ned””as it is contrary to the guidelines issued for
of officiais in the Department of Police and
A -i.i:pr’en1ature transfer of the Applicant was not preceded by
the order of the Cadre Management Authority and
\§>
-12-
wherefore, the KAT by order dated 20.03.2009, allowed
the Applications filed by the fifth respondent herein and
has set aside the orders dated 23.10.2008 and V.
passed by the first respondent.
16.1 Having regard to the abo.ve_4sai_d””fa’ct.$,’V”it’dis
clear that the fifth respondent herein”:.had_’_’ iassuiirnedifchiafrkgeg”*1:’
as Additional Superintendent’V__:0f.x Police, .
28.07.2008 and the ;__irnpug4An_edf._order.” transfer
transferring the fifth respondent. of the
COD, Bangalore, iegassed’ it was a
premature tr–ansfer,as.n::dt c’on:tra.ry to the transfer guidelines
dated 22.1.’t;’24001v was not preceded by the
order V0_’E’t”.h€2 Cadreflianagement Authority. Therefore, the
_V.»”rilgyhtly..V’held that the order of transfer dated
23″.10’f.l2i00si”‘ioaptligoed in Application No.5213/2008 could
‘not s–usta’i”ned. The KAT further held that the
…..,’i,”‘5;;’v:bseguenf0order of transfer impugned in Application
‘.”gl’§lo’.~¢li5/22009 dated 16.01.2009 is also liable to be set
A fasiide. It is well settled that the Tribunal or this Court
élwouid be slow to interfere with the order of transfer and
Q’
-13-
only in cases, where the order of transfer is without
jurisdiction or is motivated by mafia ride, the Tribunal:”ob.r’~i.Vv
this Court would not hesitate to set aside
transfer. in the present case, the order_of tiansfeii ,of=:the 04
Applicant before the KAT (respondent N103
23.10.2008 was not preceded”by—._theV”o-rdery oiiv’,:t’rive’vCIaVdr3e ‘A
Management Authority and it ways_Tp:reni.a»ture. «*i”_rierefr3re,’it
is clear that the order cétraénsfaerifh the first
respondent dated order
passed by 4’ 16.01.2009
per order dated
23.10.2003 ._were.w_ithoLi’tf_i’jarisdiction and could not be
sustained arid ithe”‘-in€”pAugij’g..d’order passed by the KAT
_Vquashinjg 00 the sai”(i.._o:rvders of transfer passed by the first
inA’-responiden’ti:.dat’ed 23.10.2008 and 16.01.2009 is justified
ari0′._d’t§.es not_~vsdffe’r’.from any error or illegality as to call for
V interferenc.e.ir’a”these writ petitions.
In view of the order of transfer passed by the
respondent dated 31.07.2009 transferring the writ
petitioner herein, who was awaiting order of transfer, as
\3
-14-
Superintendent of Police (Civil, non-IPS), DCRE,
Bangalore, we hold that the writ petitioner is not eintiltiiedgi
to any relief in these writ petitions. Accordingl_y-‘,i—-we[“E.i’o’l{i ~
that the writ petitions are devoid of….nfierit _’a’nd”the
following Order:–
The Writ Petitions are dismi’s’s«e:d.
‘_ Q f Justice
Sd/-
IUDGE
was nos:
suma