High Court of Karnataka Quashes Transfer Order in Service Matter — Petitioner Kept Awaiting Posting Without Justification. Transfer Order Set Aside as Petitioner Was Transferred Without Considering His Representation and Without Following Procedure Under Karnataka Civil Services Rules.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, N. Muniraju, a Revenue Inspector working at the City Municipal Council, Hebbagodi, challenged an order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, which kept him as 'awaiting posting order'. The petitioner had been initially appointed on 22.07.1995 in a Grama Panchayat, his services were regularized w.e.f. 27.02.2005, and he was promoted to First Division Revenue Inspector on 11.12.2014. On 29.07.2015, he was transferred to Hebbagodi. The impugned order transferred him again but without assigning any specific posting, leaving him in a state of limbo. The court found that the order was not based on any administrative exigency and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to make a representation. The court held that such an order is not a valid transfer but a punitive measure, and quashed the order, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in his existing post until a proper transfer order is passed in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Exigency - The court considered whether a transfer order that keeps an employee as 'awaiting posting' without any specific posting is valid. Held that such an order is not a transfer but a suspension of duties, and must be justified by administrative exigency. The court found no such exigency and quashed the order. (Paras 1-4)

B) Service Law - Transfer - Right of Representation - The court noted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to make a representation before the transfer order was passed. Held that principles of natural justice require that an employee be heard before an adverse transfer order is made. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2017, which kept the petitioner as awaiting posting, was valid and justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.07.2017 is quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in his existing post until a proper transfer order is passed in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Transfer order must be based on administrative exigency
  • not punitive
  • right to make representation before transfer
  • principles of natural justice in service transfers
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (07) 24

Writ Petition No.33158/2017 (S-TR)

2017-07-28

Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Sri Satish K. Advocate for Sri M. S. Bhagwat, Advocate for petitioner; Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, HCGP for R-1; Sri Nithyananda K. R., Advocate for C/R-3

N. Muniraju

The State of Karnataka, The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Hebbagodi, V. Ramesh

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a transfer order that kept the petitioner as awaiting posting.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the impugned order dated 20.07.2017 and direction to allow the petitioner to continue in his existing post.

Filing Reason

The petitioner was transferred and kept as awaiting posting without any justification or opportunity of representation.

Issues

Whether the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2017 is valid and justified. Whether the petitioner was entitled to make a representation before the transfer order.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the transfer order was arbitrary and without any administrative exigency. The petitioner contended that he was not given an opportunity to make a representation before the order was passed.

Ratio Decidendi

A transfer order that keeps an employee as 'awaiting posting' without any specific posting is not a valid transfer but a punitive measure. Such an order must be based on administrative exigency and the employee must be given an opportunity to make a representation before the order is passed.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.7.2017, passed by the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, whereby the petitioner has been kept as awaiting posting order. In a short compass, the facts of the case are that on 22.7.1995, the petitioner was initially appointed in a Grama Panchayat.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.07.2017. The petition came up for preliminary hearing and was allowed on 28.07.2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Transfer Order in Service Matter — Petitioner Kept Awaiting Posting Without Justification. Transfer Order Set Aside as Petitioner Was Transferred Without Considering His Representation and Without Following Procedure...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Company's Petition and Allows Employees' Petition in Part in Lock-Out Wages Dispute Under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court upheld the Labour Court's direction to pay 12 months lock-out wages to fo...