THIMMEGOWDA D. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as an Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) and who was sent on deputation to O&M Division, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), Chandapura, Bengaluru has challenged the order transferring the petitioner to TA and QC, KPTCL, Bengaluru. In place of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 has been transferred and posted. A further direction has been sought for to direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner at the place he was working prior to the impugned order till he completes the tenure as provided for under the Government Order at Annexure-D dated 07.06.2013, which lays down "Guidelines regarding Transfer of Government Servants", hereinafter referred to as 'Transfer Guidelines'.

(2.) By virtue of the impugned order at Annexure-'G' dated 30.09.2019, the respondent No.3 has transferred respondent No.5 in place of the petitioner while the petitioner himself has been transferred to TA and QC, KPTCL, Kaveri Bhavan, Bengaluru. It is submitted that he was transferred and posted in his present posting as per the order at Annexure-A dated 01.08.2018 and the order transferring him was passed on 30.09.2019. After his tenure of one year 20 days, he has been transferred as per the impugned order, which it is contended is contrary to the assured tenure provided under the Transfer Guidelines which are adopted insofar as the employees of the KPTCL are concerned.

(3.) It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Group 'A' employee and cannot be transferred for a period of three years as per the Transfer Guidelines. It is also contended that the Transfer Guidelines have statutory force as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Mr. Chandru H.N. v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2011 KAR 1585 and accordingly there can be no breach of the said Transfer Guidelines. Though it is pointed out that under Clause- 9(b) of the Transfer Guidelines, there is a provision for deviation from the Transfer Guidelines and though the said order must be preceded by the prior approval of the Chief Minister, and despite respondent No.5 placing reliance on an order passed by Chief Minister, the said order is cryptic and does not contain any reasons and in light of the settled law, unless reasons are assigned making out an exception, it is contended that the order of the Chief Minister is liable to be ignored.