Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri R.D. Ramadas, a Panchayat Development Officer working at Beerihundi Grama Panchayat, Mysore Taluk, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. He was aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.1650/2022, which had dismissed his challenge to his transfer order. The petitioner contended that his transfer to Naganahalli Grama Panchayat was arbitrary, made without following the Karnataka State Civil Services (Transfer) Rules, 2018, and without affording him any opportunity of hearing. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat, Mysuru, and the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Mysore, along with the private respondent Sri Kullegowda, opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, and the counsel for the caveator/respondent No.4, examined the impugned order and the transfer policy. The Court found that the transfer was effected without compliance with the statutory rules and without giving the petitioner a chance to be heard. The Court noted that the transfer was not in the normal course but appeared to be punitive, and thus principles of natural justice were attracted. The Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and quashed the transfer order, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case afresh in accordance with law and the Transfer Rules. The Court also directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue at his present place of posting until a fresh decision is taken.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Validity of Transfer Order - Karnataka State Civil Services (Transfer) Rules, 2018 - The petitioner challenged his transfer from Beerihundi Grama Panchayat to Naganahalli Grama Panchayat on the ground that it was made without following the transfer policy and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that the transfer was arbitrary and violative of the rules and natural justice. (Paras 2-5) B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Transfer of Employee - The Court held that an employee is entitled to be heard before an adverse transfer order is passed, especially when the transfer is not in the normal course but is punitive or based on complaints. (Para 4) C) Service Law - Transfer Policy - Compliance - Karnataka State Civil Services (Transfer) Rules, 2018 - The Court observed that the transfer order did not adhere to the guidelines prescribed under the Transfer Rules, which require consideration of the employee's representation and seniority. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order of the petitioner was valid and in compliance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Transfer) Rules, 2018 and principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dated 30.05.2022 in Application No.1650/2022, and quashed the transfer order. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case afresh in accordance with law and the Karnataka State Civil Services (Transfer) Rules, 2018, and permitted the petitioner to continue at his present place of posting until a fresh decision is taken.
Law Points
- Transfer order must comply with statutory transfer policy
- principles of natural justice require opportunity of hearing before adverse transfer
- Karnataka State Civil Services (Transfer) Rules
- 2018 govern transfers of state government employees
