(1.) IN the instant case, the petitioner is questioning the correctness of the order dated 15.9.2014 passed in Application No. 6609/2013 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), vide Annexure -A wherein the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 27.9.2013 passed by the State in transferring the applicant before it i.e., fourth respondent herein, reserving liberty to the competent authority to transfer him by posting a regular holder of the post of Revenue Inspector, by following the transfer guidelines.
(2.) SRI . D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, petitioner was working as a Village Accountant and was promoted as Revenue Inspector on 4.4.2005. The fourth respondent was posted to Kasaba Hobli as Revenue Inspector in the year 2005. On the allegation of serious misconduct, a case was registered against him before the Karnataka Lokayuktha. After enquiry, he was recommended for imposition of penalty under Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('the Rules' for short). Consequently, he was compulsorily retired from service. He challenged the said order before the Tribunal and by virtue of interim order, he is continuing in service. Petitioner was transferred vide official memorandum dated 27.9.2013 to the post of Revenue Inspector on independent charge under R.32 of the Rules to Kasaba Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, in the place of fourth respondent, consequently, the fourth respondent was transferred as First Division Assistant in Srirangapatna Taluk Office. In fact, petitioner got himself relieved and reported to the post of Revenue Inspector to the transferred place. But fourth respondent in the meanwhile approached the Tribunal and was successful in obtaining an interim order of stay of transfer order. In view of the stay order, fourth respondent is continuing in the same post for more than four years, as such, it was not a transfer to the fourth respondent since he was accommodated in the same office as First Division Assistant. By virtue of an interim order passed by the Tribunal, he is continuing in the position of Revenue Inspector. Though he is not eligible under R.32 to continue in the same place, the Tribunal by misinterpreting the order of this Court in W.P. No. 14393/2012 held that his (petitioner's) transfer was not proper. The fourth respondent is not at all entitled to continue in the present post since he is already recommended for compulsory retirement under R.8(iv) of the Rules.
(3.) AFTER hearing the rival submissions and also on perusal of the order of the Tribunal, following point arises for our consideration: