(1.) By order dtd. 20/8/2022, the petitioner was transferred as Range Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Basavakalyan i.e., to the place of the third respondent. Aggrieved by this transfer order, the third respondent approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for brevity), by filing an application numbered as 20748/2022. Before the Tribunal, the third respondent pleaded that he had been transferred to Basavakalyan on 4/11/2020 and he reported to his duty at that place on 9/12/2020. But on 17/12/2020 itself, the Government passed an order withdrawing the transfer order dtd. 4/11/2020 and therefore challenging the order dtd. 17/12/2020, he filed Application No.20873/2020 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the said application and directed that the third respondent should be continued at Basavakalyan till he would complete his tenure. Giving this background, the third respondent pleaded that the transfer order dtd. 20/8/2022 was bad in the sense that he could not have been disturbed till he completed his tenure of two years at Basavakalyan.
(2.) Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that her transfer to Basavakalyan to the place of the third respondent was not bad in law because there were a lot of complaints against the third respondent. In the background of those complaints, the third respondent was transferred and to this transfer, the Hon'ble Chief Minister had given approval.
(3.) The Tribunal came to a conclusion that in Application No.20873/2020 there was a direction that the third respondent should be allowed to complete his tenure at Basavakalyan and he could not have been transferred violating that direction. With regard to the complaints against the third respondent, the Tribunal observed that if there were complaints, the third respondent could have been subjected to disciplinary proceeding. With these findings, the Tribunal allowed the application made by the third respondent and set aside the transfer order dtd. 20/8/2022.