High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Transfer of Depot Manager from Vigilance Department — Transfer Order Upheld as Administrative Decision Not Vitiated by Malice or Violation of Service Rules.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar, a Depot Manager in NWKRTC, challenged his transfer from the Vigilance Department to the post of Depot Manager by an order dated 13.06.2024 and a consequential endorsement dated 27.07.2024. He filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash these orders. The court noted that the petitioner had already approached the court in W.P. No.103386/2024, where the same grounds were urged and answered by a Coordinate Bench. The court held that it would not be necessary to reiterate those grounds as they were already dealt with. The court observed that transfer is an incident of service and cannot be interfered with unless mala fide or in violation of statutory rules. Since the petitioner failed to make out any such case, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court did not find any reason to interfere with the transfer order.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Transfer - Transfer is an incident of service - The court held that transfer orders are administrative decisions and cannot be interfered with unless shown to be mala fide or in violation of statutory rules. The petitioner's grounds were already urged and answered in a previous writ petition (W.P. No.103386/2024) before a Coordinate Bench. (Paras 3-4)

B) Service Law - Res Judicata - Earlier decision binding - The court observed that since the petitioner had already approached the court in W.P. No.103386/2024 and the grounds were answered, the same grounds cannot be re-agitated. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the transfer order dated 13.06.2024 and consequential endorsement dated 27.07.2024 transferring the petitioner from Vigilance Department to the post of Depot Manager are liable to be quashed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit.

Law Points

  • Transfer is an incident of service
  • Transfer order cannot be interfered with unless mala fide or in violation of statutory rules
  • Writ petition dismissed as grounds already urged and answered in earlier writ petition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (01) 42

WP No. 105244 of 2024 (S-KSRTC)

2025-01-08

M. Nagaprasanna

NC: 2025:KHC-D:294

Sri Ravi Hegde (for petitioner), Sri Prashant S. Hosamani (for respondents)

Sri Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar

The Chief Personnel Manager, NWKRTC, Hubballi and The Managing Director, NWKRTC, Hubballi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging transfer order and consequential endorsement.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of transfer order dated 13.06.2024 and endorsement dated 27.07.2024.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was transferred from Vigilance Department to the post of Depot Manager.

Previous Decisions

Petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No.103386/2024 before a Coordinate Bench where similar grounds were urged and answered.

Issues

Whether the transfer order is liable to be quashed on grounds already urged and answered in earlier writ petition.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the transfer order was illegal and arbitrary. Respondents supported the transfer as an administrative decision.

Ratio Decidendi

Transfer is an incident of service and cannot be interfered with unless mala fide or in violation of statutory rules. The petitioner's grounds were already urged and answered in a previous writ petition, hence the petition is dismissed.

Judgment Excerpts

Since the petitioner was already before this Court, it would not become necessary to reiterate the grounds that are now being urged which were already urged and answered before the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.103386/2024. The petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed W.P. No.105244/2024 challenging transfer order dated 13.06.2024 and endorsement dated 27.07.2024. Earlier, he had filed W.P. No.103386/2024 on similar grounds which was answered by a Coordinate Bench. The present petition came up for preliminary hearing and was dismissed.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Insufficient Evidence. Business Rivalry and Last Seen Theory Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Section 302 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Section 34 Challenge Against Arbitral Order Granting Opportunity to Cure Resolution Irregularity. Order held not an interim award under Section 2(1)(c) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as it does not finally deter...