Case Note & Summary
The present appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, was filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (appellant) challenging the judgment and order dated 21st March 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 20991/2022. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent employees (Sri Naveen Kumar S. and others) and quashed the transfer orders issued by the appellant corporation transferring them from their existing places of posting to different locations. The respondents were working as Mechanics Grade-I and II in various offices of the appellant corporation and its associated companies. The transfer orders were challenged on the grounds that they were issued in violation of the transfer policy of the corporation and without any administrative exigency. The learned Single Judge, after examining the facts and the policy, found that the transfer orders were not supported by any material showing administrative necessity and that the transfer policy had not been adhered to. Consequently, the transfer orders were quashed. In the appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court considered the submissions of both sides. The appellant argued that transfer is an incident of service and the court should not interfere. The respondents contended that the transfers were arbitrary and mala fide. The Division Bench, after perusing the records, held that the transfer orders were not based on any genuine administrative requirement and that the transfer policy had been violated. The court noted that the appellant had not produced any material to justify the transfers. Therefore, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. The court also observed that the transfer orders suffered from non-application of mind and were not sustainable in law.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Validity of Transfer Orders - Transfer Policy - The appellant corporation issued transfer orders transferring the respondent employees from one place to another. The employees challenged the orders on the ground that they were issued in violation of the transfer policy and without any administrative exigency. The learned Single Judge quashed the transfer orders. On appeal, the Division Bench held that the transfer orders were not supported by any material showing administrative necessity and that the transfer policy had not been adhered to. The court upheld the Single Judge's order, finding that the transfer orders suffered from non-application of mind and were not sustainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Transfer - Judicial Review - Scope - The court reiterated that while transfer is an incident of service, the same is subject to the employer's policy and must be based on genuine administrative reasons. The court can interfere if the transfer is mala fide or in violation of statutory rules or policy. In the present case, the transfer orders were found to be arbitrary and without any justification, warranting interference. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer orders issued by the appellant corporation were valid and in compliance with the applicable transfer policy, and whether the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing them.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the transfer orders.
Law Points
- Transfer policy must be followed strictly
- Transfer orders must be based on administrative exigency
- Non-application of mind vitiates transfer orders
- Judicial review of transfer orders is permissible when policy violated
- Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act
- 1961
