AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 6733/2013, dated 22.11.2013, by which the order of transferring the petitioner to Halasur Sub-Division, Bangalore City as DSP/ACP (Civil), is set aside. The records reveal that the 3rd respondent herein who was working at Forest Cell, Bangalore, was transferred to Halasur Sub-Division, Bangalore City as DSP/ACP vide the order at Annexure-A1, dated 18.4.2013 during the period of General Elections to Assembly as per the direction of the Election Commission. He was retransferred to Forest Cell from Halasur Sub-Division by the order dated 11.7.2013 after completion of elections vide Annexure-A2.
The orders at Annexures-A1 and A2 cannot be found fault with, inasmuch as those orders shall be treated as the orders relating to deputation for the purpose of elections. However, the general transfer order came to be passed as per Annexure-A3, dated 25.9.2013 transferring the third respondent from Forest Cell to Halasur Sub-Division, Bangalore City. At that point of time, the petitioner was working as DSP in Shikaripura Sub-Division. By the very order dated 25.9.2013, the petitioner who was working in Shikaripura Sub-Division was transferred to Tumkur Rural Sub-Division, Tumkur District. However, within three days, i.e., on 28.9.2013, the earlier order dated 25.9.2013 came to be modified to certain extent reshuffling the transfer of 14 persons, including the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. By the modified order dated 28.9.2013, the petitioner was transferred to Halasur Sub-Division Bangalore City from Forest Cell, Bangalore, who was under the orders of transfer to Tumkur Rural Sub-Division and the third respondent who was under the orders of transfer to Halasur Sub-Division from Forest Cell was transferred to DE, Bangalore City. The third respondent being aggrieved by the said order of modification dated 28.9.2013, approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 22.11.2013.
Sri Narayan Bhat, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained, inasmuch as certain observations of the Tribunal are extraneous to the facts pleaded by the petitioner; the Tribunal has misdirected itself while coming to the conclusion, inasmuch as the third respondent was shifted from one Police Station/Office to another Police Station/Office in Bangalore City and therefore virtually, the third respondent was not transferred; shifting of the third respondent from one place to another place in Bangalore City is for the administrative reasons; since the petitioner was working at Shikaripura, he was transferred to Tumkur, by virtue of general transfer order within three days; the said order of transfer is modified for placing the third respondent at Halasur Sub-Division for administrative reasons.
Sri Bajentri, leaned Government Advocate drawing the attention of the Court to the clarification made by the third respondent herein (who was the applicant before the Tribunal) in Application No. 6733/2013, submits that the petitioner herein has misguided the Tribunal by putting-forth wrong facts.
Sri Mukkannappa, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the third respondent should not have been shifted from Halasur Sub-Division to DE, Bangalore City within a period of three days; shifting of the third respondent from one place to another place clearly reveals that the petitioner is nearer to the place of power; the third respondent has been working in non-executive post of ACP since long and as the Tribunal considering all the facts in right perspective, has come to the correct conclusion, no interference may be made.
As aforementioned, the orders at Annexures-A1 and A2, dated 18.4.2013 and 11.7.2013 respectively cannot be found fault with, inasmuch as they are made for the purposes of election duty. However, we are concerned with the general transfer order dated 25.9.2013 and the modified order dated 28.9.2013. Despite the same, the Tribunal has misdirected itself by taking into consideration the earlier orders at Annexures-A1 and A2, dated 25.9.2013 and 28.9.2013 respectively stating that respondent No. 3 is transferred repeatedly from one place to other place. This Court in any number of cases has concluded that the transfer orders made pursuant to the directions of the Election Commission shall be deemed to be the orders of deputation and not the orders of transfer. Therefore, the orders at Annexures-A1 and A2, dated 18.4.2013 and 11.7.2013 respectively cannot be considered as orders of transfer. Undisputedly, the order at Annexure-A3, dated 25.9.2013, is order of general transfer by which the petitioner is transferred from Shikaripura Sub-Division to Tumkur Rural Division, whereas respondent No. 3 is transferred from Forest Cell to Halasur Sub-Division, Bangalore City. After getting the order of transfer dated 25.9.2013, the third respondent submitted his representation before the jurisdictional DCP to join for duty at Halasur Sub-Division, on 20.7.2013. However, the DCP, Bangalore directed the third respondent to take permission of the Commissioner of Police before joining duties as per the procedure. In this view of the matter, the third respondent did not join for duties before 28 9.2013 at Halasur Sub-Division. However, on 28.9.2013, the order of modification of transfer as per Annexure-A7 came to be issued by the State Government in public interest and for administrative reasons. By the said order, the third respondent is shifted to DE, Bangalore City from Forest Cell, Bangalore, (at that point of time the third respondent was under order of transfer from Forest Cell to Halasur Sub-Division). By the very order of modification, the petitioner is transferred to Halasur Sub-Division, Bangalore City.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of modification, dated 28.9.2013, particularly when it is made for the administrative reasons and in public interest. The order of transfer, dated 25.9.2013 is modified in the case of third respondent shifting him from Forest Cell Halasur Sub-Division, Bangalore City to DE, Bangalore City, which clearly reveals that the third respondent is shifted from one Police Station to another Police Station within Bangalore City and he is not shifted elsewhere outside Bangalore City. Virtually the third respondent is not transferred from Bangalore City. As has been held by this Court in number of cases, including in the case of Election Commission of India v. The State of Karnataka in W.P. Nos. 17123-17124/2013, disposed of on 16.4.2013, and in the case of Ramachandra v. The State of Karnataka in W.P. No. 53164/2013, disposed of on 5.12.2013, the transfer means movement of a Government servant from head quarters station in which he is employed to another such station. Rule 8(49) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules also defines "transfer" as mentioned supra. Since the third respondent is shifted from one office to another office within Bangalore City, it is not open for him to contend that he is transferred.
Since the modification order dated 28.9.2013 is passed due to administrative exigencies and in public interest, no reason need be assigned by the State while modifying the order. Hence, the modified order of transfer dated 28.9.2013 should not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Hence, the following order is made:--
The impugned order dated 22.11.2013 passed in Application No. 6733/2013 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, stands quashed.
Writ petition is allowed accordingly.