M. Krishnaveni vs The State of Karnataka and Others

H. Billappa, J.—Sri. H.B. Mahesh, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No. 8170/2015 vide Annexure ''A''.

By the impugned order, the Administrative Tribunal has quashed the order dated 29.10.2015, in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the third respondent.

Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts are:--

"The petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor at Mangaluru. On promotion as Public Prosecutor, she was posted to First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madikeri by order dated 18.8.2015. The petitioner did not report for duty. She applied for leave. Thereafter, by order dated 29.10.2015, the order dated 18.8.2015 has been modified posting the petitioner to Udupi in the place of the third respondent and transferring the third respondent to Madikeri. Aggrieved by that, the third respondent has challenged the order dated 29.10.2015 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No. 8170/2015. The Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, by its order dated 30.11.2015 has quashed the order dated 29.10.2015 in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 is concerned. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition."

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Government Order dated 21.11.2001 is not in force. The Tribunal has erred while passing the impugned based on the Government Order dated 22.11.2001. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Further he submitted that there is no plea regarding political influence or malafides. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the order dated 29.10.2015 on the ground that the order was passed due to political influence. He also submitted that the transfer was made in public interest and it was made in accordance with the guidelines. Further he submitted that pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2015, the petitioner has taken charge at Udupi on 03.11.2015 and therefore, the Administrative Tribunal was not justified in quashing the order dated 29.10.2015. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 9 SCC 755 to contend that in the absence of specific plea regarding political influence or malafides the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the order dated 29.10.2015.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the respondent No. 3 was working as public prosecutor at Udupi and he is due to retire on 31.07.2016. Therefore, the order dated 29.10.2015 is in violation of the guideline 9(a)(i). Further he submitted that the petitioner was posted to Madikeri by order dated 18.08.2015. The petitioner did not report for duty at Madikeri immediately. Instead of that, the petitioner has approached the Ministers and has managed to obtain the modified order dated 29.10.2015. The Administrative Tribunal taking into consideration that the modified order was due to political influence has quashed the order dated 29.10.2015 and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that when the respondent No. 3 is due to retire on 31.07.2016, the order dated 29.10.2015 without assigning any reason is invalid in law and contrary to guidelines. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order dated 29.10.2015. Further he submitted that the transfer was not in public interest. It was at the instance of the petitioner and due to political influence. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

The learned Government pleader submitted that the transfer was in public interest and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order dated 29.10.2015.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for our consideration is:--

"Whether the impugned order calls for interference?"

It is relevant to note, the petitioner was working as senior Assistant Public Prosecutor at Mangaluru. She was promoted and posted to Madikeri by order dated 18.08.2015. The petitioner has not reported for duty. On the other hand, the petitioner has applied for leave and moved the Government for modification of the order dated 18.8.2015. Till the order dated 18.8.2015 was modified, the petitioner has not reported for duty. Immediately after the order dated 18.8.2015 was modified, she has reported for duty on 03.11.2015 at Udupi. In the meanwhile, the respondent No. 3 has approached the Administrative Tribunal and obtained stay of the order dated 29.10.2015. By that time, the petitioner claims that she had reported for duty at Udupi. Before the Tribunal, the records have been produced by the Government. The Tribunal noticing the minute dated 03.09.2015 of the Hon''ble Chief Minister and also the minute dated 01.09.2015 of the Hon''ble Urban Development and Incharge Minster of Udupi District has held that the order dated 29.10.2015 has been issued due to political influence. The guidelines dated 07.06.2013 show that the general transfers must be made during May and June. In case the employee due to transfer after completion of tenure at a place or posting or post has less than two years of service for retirement, the period can be extended by giving reasons. Further, the guidelines also show that no political influence should be used for transfer. A request can be made for modification of the order. In the present case, the petitioner has not approached the concerned authority for modification of the order. On the other hand, the minutes of the Hon''ble Chief Minister dated 03.09.2015 and Urban Development and Udupi District Incharge Minister dated 01.09.2015 clearly show that the order dated 18.8.2015 has been modified due to political influence. Without assigning any reasons, the respondent No. 3 has been transferred to Madikeri and the petitioner has been posted to the place of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 is due to retire on 31.7.2016. The order dated 29.10.2015 is in clear violation of the guidelines and not in public interest. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order dated 29.10.2015 in so far as it relates to the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

The respondent No. 3 can continue at Udupi.

In so far as petitioner is concerned, the respondents 1 and 2 can pass appropriate orders for her posting.