G. PRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, THE DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER AND THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A transfer order by a management, transferring one of its employees from one workplace to another workplace is not normally a matter of interference. If the management happens to be either state or an instrumentality of state, inevitably, writ jurisdiction is invoked by the transferred, employee to question the order of transfer. Transfer being an incident of service and the management having power to transfer an employee, especially for administrative exigencies, the order of transfer is not normally interfered by courts. However, when even the power of transfer is exercised in an arbitrary manner, whimsical manner, either to victimize an employee or to favour another employee, but it is effected by giving the name 'done for administrative exigency' or as is popularity known in the service jurisprudence by the bureaucratic management in the governance 'in the public interest', and if it is really in the public interest, courts seldom interfere with such transfer orders however, as noticed earlier, when the power has been exercised in a mala fide way, in an arbitrary fashion, in a whimsical fashion to victimize an employee or to favour another one and the employer happens to be state or an instrumentality of state, interference is enabled even in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

(2.) IT is placing support and strength on the law as developed in the case of arbitrary transfers and when the power is exercised for ulterior purpose, but in a different name or for a different purpose, then, being a case of colourable exercise of power, courts can interfere and that is also called in aid by the present petitioners, numbering about 46, who are all employees of Karnataka state road transport corporation, an undertaking of government of Karnataka, and working as either drivers, conductors or driver -cum -conductors and who have been en masse transferred as per the order dated 4 -8 -2012 [copy at Annexure -B to the writ petition] from Mysore division in which they were all working to neighbouring divisions, allowing them seven days' time to join duty at the transferred place. It is questioning these transfers, the present writ petitions have been filed by the writ petitioners.

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioners that they were able to obtain information by seeking aid under the provisions of the Right of Information Act, 2005 and they have also been able to obtain certain internal correspondence that had preceded between the top officers of the corporation before the transfer order was issued; that the internal correspondence clearly reveals the allegation of the petitioner having indulged in gross misconduct of temporary misappropriation of the revenue of the corporation; that amount collected for the sale of daily passes had been withheld by the petitioners for some time before being remitted to the account of the corporation; that it amounts to improper use or misuse of funds of the corporation and therefore necessary disciplinary action was required to be initiated against the petitioners and in this background as a first step, all petitioners had been transferred.