G.B. MANJUNATH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND SRI T. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 6733/2013, dated 22.11.2013, by which the order of transferring the petitioner to Halasur Sub -Division, Bangalore City as DSP/ACP (Civil), is set aside. The records reveal that the 3rd respondent herein who was working at Forest Cell, Bangalore, was transferred to Halasur Sub -Division, Bangalore City as DSP/ACP vide the order at Annexure -A1, dated 18.4.2013 during the period of General Elections to Assembly as per the direction of the Election Commission. He was retransferred to Forest Cell from Halasur Sub -Division by the order dated 11.7.2013 after completion of elections vide Annexure -A2.

(2.) THE orders at Annexures -A1 and A2 cannot be found fault with, inasmuch as those orders shall be treated as the orders relating to deputation for the purpose of elections. However, the general transfer order came to be passed as per Annexure -A3, dated 25.9.2013 transferring the third respondent from Forest Cell to Halasur Sub -Division, Bangalore City. At that point of time, the petitioner was working as DSP in Shikaripura Sub -Division. By the very order dated 25.9.2013, the petitioner who was working in Shikaripura Sub -Division was transferred to Tumkur Rural Sub -Division, Tumkur District. However, within three days, i.e., on 28.9.2013, the earlier order dated 25.9.2013 came to be modified to certain extent reshuffling the transfer of 14 persons, including the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. By the modified order dated 28.9.2013, the petitioner was transferred to Halasur Sub -Division Bangalore City from Forest Cell, Bangalore, who was under the orders of transfer to Tumkur Rural Sub -Division and the third respondent who was under the orders of transfer to Halasur Sub -Division from Forest Cell was transferred to DE, Bangalore City. The third respondent being aggrieved by the said order of modification dated 28.9.2013, approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 22.11.2013.

(3.) SRI Bajentri, leaned Government Advocate drawing the attention of the Court to the clarification made by the third respondent herein (who was the applicant before the Tribunal) in Application No. 6733/2013, submits that the petitioner herein has misguided the Tribunal by putting -forth wrong facts.