S.SRINIVASA Vs. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as Assistant Revenue Officer with the respondent-B.B.M.P. has filed this writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India agitating on order of transfer placing the petitioner from one office to another office in the city of Bengaluru.

(2.) A chronological order of events are required to be narrated to appreciate the case of the petitioner. On 01.04.2017 the petitioner was transferred to J.C.Nagar as Assistant Revenue Officer (A.R.O.). After completion of three years, an order was passed on 16.03.2020 transferring him from J.C.Nagar to Citizen Service Centre, Yalahanka within Bengaluru city and by the same order respondent No.5 was transferred from Citizen Service Centre, Yalahanka to J.C.Nagar. It is submitted that on 18.03.2020 respondent No.5 reported for duty at J.C.Nagar in terms of the transfer order dated 16.03.2020. However, the petitioner did not report for duty at Citizen Service Centre, Yalahanka. Thereafter, another order dated 15.04.2020 was passed withdrawing the order dated 16.03.2020. Consequently the respondent No.5 seems to have made a complaint to the Head of the Department, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department. Considering the complaint made by respondent No.5 to the Head of the Department, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department instructed the Commissioner, B.B.M.P. on 24.04.2020 that the complaint made by the respondent No.5 is genuine and therefore his representation for giving effect to the order dated 16.03.2020 is required to be considered. Consequently an order dated 24.06.2020 was passed by the Commissioner, B.B.M.P. to give effect to the order dated 16.03.2020. Thereafter, impugned order dated 14.08.2020 was passed giving effect to the earlier order dated 16.03.2020 transferring the petitioner to Citizen Service Centre, Yalahanka and respondent No.5 in the place of the petitioner at J.C.Nagar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer order has been issued at the instance of a Minister and therefore it is submitted that the order of transfer is vitiated as the same is done with a malafide intention and under political pressure. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner submits that there are any number of decisions of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that the competent authority is required to pass orders of transfer only in accordance with law and not under compulsion of any political authority. Attention of this Court is drawn to the note sheet which has been produced along with statement of objection filed by learned counsel for respondent No.5. It is also submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner while the competent authority to pass the order of transfer is only the Commissioner.