P. VASANTH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Special Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Bangalore Development Authority, from 2-1-2013. The second respondent during that time was working as a General Manager (Administration and Human Resources), Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Limited, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'KREDL' for short). Vide Notification/Order No. CAASUE 106 AASEVA 13 (PART 1), dated 14-11-2013, the petitioner was transferred to a vacant post of Joint Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (hereinafter referred to as 'B.M.T.F.' for short), Bangalore, and respondent 2 was brought to the place of the petitioner as Special Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Bangalore Development Authority. The said order was challenged on several grounds by the petitioner before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 7362 of 2013 and the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the said application. Against which, the present writ petition has been filed. So far as the procedural irregularity committed by the Government in directly transferring the petitioner as Joint Commissioner for B.M.T.F. without concurrence and consent of the Urban Development Department under which B.M.T.F. works are concerned, the same has been set at rest by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under the impugned order, by giving directions to the Government to issue transfer order after requisite order by the Urban Development Department. Now the said ground is no more res integra between the parties.

(2.) Sri Jaya Kumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner raised two important grounds before this Court, challenging the transfer order dated 14-11-2013:

(3.) Per contra, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, learned Counsel for the respondent 2 submitted that the grounds urged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal are the same grounds urged before this Court. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by assigning proper and adequate reasons dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no room for interference with such reasoned order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. It is also contended by him that the alleged influence by the Minister, in no way stands to the reason because the said letter of the Minister, produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition does not find a place in the records. On the basis of the imaginary grounds, the said claim has been made by the petitioner. He further contends that the transfer order cannot be termed as a premature, because under the transfer policy rules dated 7-6-2013, the Government is empowered to pass even a premature transfer order depending upon the exigencies, by assigning proper reasons. When the Government came to know that, there are some allegations against the petitioner, in order to avoid unnecessary problems, it appears the Government has passed such a transfer order. On the other hand, the second respondent never aspired for any particular post and he never made any request in this regard. Therefore, the transfer order stands to reason and it does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court.