ORDER
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.
1. These are two writ petitions filed by Sri K.S. Suryanarayana the Ex-Municipal President of Kolar City Municipal Council. These have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation. The prayer made in writ petition No. 24217 of 2002 is for a direction to the State of Karnataka and the Director of Municipal Administration to implement the report dated 25.4.2001 submitted by the Lokayukta, Bangalore under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 indicting Sri S. Hanumanthappa respondent who was then posted as Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Bidar. In the other writ petition (W.P.No. 44930 of 2004) the prayer is for quashing the order dated 12.7.2004 transferring the said Sri S. Hanumanthappa as Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, Kolar. Since Sri Hanumanthappa respondent has been placed under suspension in pursuance to the interim order dated 28.3.2005 passed by this Court the prayers made in the two writ petitions have become infructuous and in the normal course we would have closed this case. However, the facts and circumstances of this case compel us to make some observations in regard to the manner in which Hanumanthappa came to be transferred back as Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Kolar where during his earlier tenure he is alleged to have committed some irregularities and misappropriated municipal funds for which a criminal case stands registered against him and he is also facing a departmental enquiry.
2. Hanumanthappa is a member of the Karnataka Municipal Administration Service and had worked as Commissioner in Kolar City Municipal Council from 10.6.1993 to 20.3.1996 and again from 3.9.1998 to 4.8.2000. It is alleged that while working as Commissioner at Kolar, Hanumanthappa along with some others had committed several irregularities and had also misappropriated municipal funds. A complaint was made by the petitioner to the Lokayukta who after looking into the same conducted an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Lokayukta Act and came to the conclusion that Hanumanthappa and some others were responsible for serious irregularities and misappropriation of municipal funds. A report dated 25.4.2001 was submitted to the State Government in this regard. Since no action was taken on that report the petitioner filed writ petition No. 24217 of 2002 for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to implement the report and take action against Hanumanthappa and others. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar got a criminal case registered on 19.3.2003 against Hanumanthappa and others under Sections 408, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. which is still under investigation. While this writ petition was pending the State Government by its order dated 12.7.2004 transferred Sri Hanumanthappa who was then working as Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Bidar to the Municipal Council, Kolar where he had earlier worked. It was then that writ petition 44930 of 2004 came to be filed with a prayer that the transfered order be quashed because the allegations of misappropriation against Hanumanthappa which had prima facie been established against him by the report of the Lokayukta pertained to his tenure at Kolar in respect of which the Deputy Commissioner had got the case registered against Hanumanthappa and others. A departmental enquiry has also been ordered against him. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it would not be in public interest to transfer Hanumanthappa back to Kolar where he is said to have misappropriated municipal funds and committed other irregularities. His apprehensions were that Hanumanthappa would destroy the evidence against him and others which was available on the records and that the employees of the Municipal Council at Kolar who are likely to be the witnesses in the case would hesitate to depose against their Commissioner.
3. During the course of the hearings, the Learned Government counsel sought adjournments on three occasions to enable him to impress upon the Government to transfer Hanumanthappa to some Municipal Council in the State other than Kolar and we had made it known that if he could be transferred elsewhere both the cases could be closed. Unfortunately, on all the three occasions, the Learned Government counsel expressed his inability to persuade the Government to transfer Hanumanthappa from Kolar to any other Municipal Council. We are informed that there are more than 100 Municipal Councils in the State of Karnataka but the Government was adamant to post him only to Kolar for reasons which later came to be known from the Government file. The only explanation furnished in the written statement filed on its behalf is that Hanumanthappa belongs to the cadre of Karnataka Municipal Administration Service and is a Grade-1 Officer who could be posted only as Municipal Commissioner in any of the City Municipal Councils in the State and accordingly the authorities have transferred him from Bidar to Kolar in public interest. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we reserved our orders on 2.2.2005 and directed the Government Advocate to produce the original file in which the order transferring Hanumanthappa back to Kolar as Commissioner of the Municipal Council had been passed. On going through the file we were amazed to learn about the circumstances in which his transfer came about. We then passed an interim order on 28.3.2005 directing the Chief Minister and Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda, Agriculture Minister to file affidavits by way of their response since the Government files placed before us did reflect upon their conduct and they were not parties to the petition. By the same order we directed the State Government to place Hanumanthappa under suspension in view of the serious allegations made against him which prima facie stood substantiated by the report of the Lokayukta. In pursuance to our order the Chief Minister and the Agriculture Minister have both filed their short affidavits by way of their response and we have examined those affidavits.
4. Having gone through the file carefully it transpires that Hanumanthappa was transferred back under the orders of the Chief Minister even though the Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Chief Secretary had recommended his suspension. The Chief Minister acted on the recommendation of Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda, the Agriculture Minister in his Cabinet, ignoring the approval granted by his predecessor (the then Chief Minister) to the suspension of Hanumanthappa as proposed by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Urban Development Department. The Secretary, Urban Development and the Chief Secretary had both opposed the transfer of Hanumanthappa back to Kolar and on the contrary they made a proposal for his suspension having regard to the nature of allegations made against him which were substantiated by the report of the Lokayukta. It was thereafter that the Chief Minister insted of placing Hanumanthappa under suspension posted him back to Kolar as Commissioner of the Municipal Council. When the proposal to transfer Hanumanthappa back to Kolar was made the Secretary to Government Urban Development Department made the following note which was despatched to the Secretary to Chief Minister on 25.2.2004:
“1. Shri S. Hanumanthappa-Shri S. Hanumanthappa, KMAS officer has earlier worked as Commissioner, CMC, Kolar. Lokayukta had conducted an enquiry in to the complaints and gave its report (page 68 of the file placed below). Lokayukta had recommended criminal action against Shri S. Hanumanthappa and Hon’ble Chief Minister at page 85/cf of the file placed below had also directed that prosecution should be launched against the official. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar has filed a criminal case against the official for his action of misappropriation and misuse during his stay as Commissioner of CMC, Kolar. Shri S. Hanumanthappa was subsequently transferred to Bidar, CMC as Commissioner. In view of there facts, it may not be appropriate to transfer him back to Kolar, CMC as Commissioner. As a matter of fact he should have been placed under suspension as the criminal case is on”.
There is then a note by the Secretary to the Chief Minister dated 28.2.2004 which when translated in English reads as under:
“The file has been perused by the Chief Minister and the opinion of the Secretary has been approved”.
The file then goes back to the Secretary, Urban Development who then makes a querry on 1.3.2004 “Check up whether the Officers are incolved in election and issue”.
It appears that the elections to the State Legislative Assembly in Karnataka had been announced and the model code of conduct had come into force and it is for this reason that the aforesaid query was made by the Secretary, Urban Development. While the matter stood thus, there is a note on the file dated 5.3.2004 initialled by someone whose signatures are not decipherable and the same when translated in English reads as under;
“Await further instructions in the matter”.
In the meanwhile, the elections to the Legislative Assembly were held in April-May 2004 and a new Government headed by Sri N. Dharam Singh as Chief Minister was formed in the end of May 2004. The file is again taken up for consideration on 10.6.2004 when the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department records the following note:
“May please see the order of the Hon’ble CM at page 5 o/f with regard to posting of Sri Hanumanthappa as Commissioner CMC Kolar. A brief note recorded by Secretary at para n/p as one Sri Hanumanthappa is for perusal and orders”.
Thereafter the file is again put up to the Secretary, Urban Development who reiterates his earlier view that Hanumanthappa should not be transferred back to Kolar in view of the criminal case pending against him. The matter was then placed before the Chief Secretary who records the following note on 11.6.1004;
“In view of circumstances explained at para 1/n.f. the official must not be transferred back to Kolar. As pointed out by Secretary, UDD he should in fact have been placed under suspension.”
The file further reveals that on 5.6.2004 Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda a cabinet Minister in the Government addressed a letter to the Chief Minister requesting him that Hanumanthappa be transferred back to Kolar as he was a good worker. This letter was placed before the Chief Minister who accorded his approval to the transfer of the second respondent back to Kolar. There is a note dated 23.6.2004 to this effect by the Secretary to the Chief Minister which when translated in English reads as under;
“Shri Hanumanthappa, who is presently working as Commissioner, CMC, Bidar has been transferred to Kolar CMC which has been duly approved by the Chief Minister”.
It was on the basis of this note that the second respondent was transferred back. One more fact that has come to light from the file is that Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda was an M.L.A. in the last Legislative Assembly and he had then by his letter dated 6.2.2004 addressed to the then Chief Minister (Sri S.M. Krishna) made a request that Hanumanthappa be posted back to Kolar and the then Chief Minister ignored his advice/request and approved the note of the Secretary, Urban Development Department to place Hanumanthappa under suspension. Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda after the elections in April-May 2004 got elected to the Legislative Assembly and became a Cabinet Minister and this time he succeeded in getting Hanumanthappa transferred back to Kolar.
5. The Chief Minister in his affidavit admits that he transferred Hanumanthappa back to Kolar on the advice of his Cabinet collegue Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda. He further states that the said transfer was not for any extraneous reasons or with a view to enable the said officer to destroy any evidence which may be used against him in the criminal case. The Chief Minister further states that he does not even personally know the officer. He also states that he agreed to transfer Hanumanthappa in order to respect the view of his Cabinet collegue and Minister in-charge of the District concerned and that there was no other reason or motive which prompted him to pass the order of transfer. Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda in his affidavit also admits that he made a request to the Chief Minister to transfer Hanumanthappa to Kolar in larger public interest and that the request was bonafide and not for any extraneous considerations. He further states that in his perception Hanumanthappa would serve well the cause of municipal administration in Kolar and that the request was made with a view to improve the municipal administration and sub-serve the cause of the public.
6. It is not in dispute that Hanumanthappa is facing charges of misappropriation of funds and other irregularities while he was working as Commissioner of the City Municipal Council at Kolar and that the Criminal case registered is still at the stage of investigation by the concerned police. Some of the witnesses who may have to depose against Hanumanthappa are from the same office and even the records are in that office. The authorities do not dispute this fact. In the fact situation, it was not at all proper to transfer and post Hanumanthappa back as Commissioner of the City Municipal Council, Kolar. The explanation furnished by the respondents in their written statement is not convincing. There are more than 100 Municipal Councils in the State of Karnataka and Hanumanthappa could be sent anywhere but the Government seems to be adamant to retain him only at Kolar presumably to enable him to destroy the evidence against him and others. It is true that the Chief Minister on receipt of our order dated 28.3.2005 placed Hanumanthappa under suspension, but by that time the damage may have been done because he remained posted there for almost one year. We are satisfied that the transfer of Hanumanthappa was for reasons other than public interest. It must be realized that howsoever high a person may be administratively or politically, he has no business to interfere in other departments with which he is not concerned in the discharge of his official duties much less with the postings and transfers of their employees. The Agriculture Minister had nothing to do with the Department of Urban Development which was the controlling department of Hanumanthappa and when he was posted at Bidar the Agriculture Minister had no business to request the Chief Minister to transfer him back to Kolar. The request was obviously motivated for political considerations, if not, for any other reason and the Chief Minister too should not have mechanically passed the order transferring him back to Kolar. He must have gone through the file and would have found that there were serious charges of misappropriation levelled against Hanumanthappa and those pertained to the period when he was posted at Kolar. The Chief Minister should have also realized that the transfer of Hanumanthappa back to Kolar was not in public interest. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was not wrong when he contended that Hanumanthappa was being protected by the Government and that his transfer back to Kolar was only with a view to enable him to destroy the evidence against him and others because a criminal case already stands registered against him. Not only this, a departmental enquiry is also pending against Hanumanthappa. It is true that this Court does not normally interfere with the orders of transfer and in this case also we would have closed the case had the Government agreed to transfer Hanumanthappa to any place other than Kolar but it was adamant not do so. Despite three adjournments granted on the request of the Government Advocate to enable him to persuade the Government to post Hanumanthappa elsewhere, he could not do so and informed us that the Government wanted the case to be decided on merits. It goes without saying that every action of the State Government and that of the Chief Minister and his collegues ought to be in public interest and there has to be probity in their functioning. The Chief Minister ought to have realized that the Secretary, Urban Development Department and also the Chief Secretary had recommended the suspension of Hanumanthappa in view of the serious charges levelled against him and that those recommendations had been approved by his predecessor the then Chief Minister Sri S.M. Krishna. We are not even for a moment suggesting that the Chief Minister could not overrule the Chief Secretary or any other officer but in doing so there has to be some good reason which should be descernible from the file. No such reason appears to be there and on the other hand the Chief Minister admits that he had transferred Hanumanthappa on the request of his Cabinet collegue. This is not the way the Government should function. It cannot run like a private estate. It is important that officers and employees are posted and transferred only for administrative reasons and according to the exigencies of service and not for any extraneous or political pressures.
7. Now that Hanumanthappa stands suspended in purusuance to the interim order passed by this Court and we were assured by the Learned Advocate General that he will be proceeded against both departmentally as also in the criminal case in accordance with law, we leave the matter at that. We hope and trust that the Chief Minister will direct the concerned officers to ensure that a fair and proper investigation is conducted in the case expeditiously and the final report submitted to the Court at the earliest but not later than 31.8.2005. We are making this observation considering the fact that the criminal case was registered way back in March 2003 and not much progress seems to have been made. We also hope that the departmental proceedings will be concluded expeditously in accordance with law.
The writ petitions stand disposed of as above.