K V SREENIVASA MURTHY Vs. C MUNISHAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is against the order dated 27-3-2006 passed by the Karnataka administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 7762/2005. As per the impugned order, the Tribunal quashed the order No. RD/ 152/bsi/2005 dated 18-7-2005 (Annexure-A. 2') passed by the Government of karnakata transferring and posting Sri. K. V. Sreenivasa Murthy, F. D. A. , Magadi (peti-tioner herein) working within the limits of bangalore Urban District, as Revenue Inspector at Vijayapura Hobli in Devanahalli Taluk, in the place of Sri. C. Munishamaiah (respondent No. 1 herein ). The Tribunal also quashed annexure-'a. 3' Order No. EST (1) CR 15/ 05-06 dated 20-7-2005 passed by the Deputy commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, implementing Annexure-'a. 2' Government order. Application No. 7762/2005 was filed by Sri. C. Munishamaiah, first respondent herein.

(2.) THE background of the case requires to be stated. The first respondent was posted as revenue Inspector at Vijayapura Hobli as per annexure-'a. 1' orderdated 6-11-2002. While the petitioner was working as Village Accountant at Vijayapura Hobli in Devanahalli Taluk, he was promoted and posted as F. D. A. in the taluk Office, Magadi, as per Annexure-'a. 4' order dated 28-4-2005. A Member of the Legislative Assembly from devanahalli Constituency submitted a representation to the Minister for Revenue on 7-5-2005 requesting to transfer the petitioner to Vijayapura Hobli as revenue Inspector. The Minister for Sericulture also sent a letter dated 19-5-2005 to the minister for Revenue requesting to transfer the petitioner to Vijayapura Hobli as Revenue inspector. No representation was submitted by the petitioner either to the Minister or any of the authorities in the Government making such a request. The Private Secretary of the Minister forwarded the abovementioned representation and letter to the Revenue Department for necessary action. The Deputy Secretary to the Government (Service) in the Revenue department noted on the file that the proposed transfer is a premature transfer as the petitioner sri. Sreenivasa Murthy is working at Magadi only from 5-5-2005 and that Sri. Munishamaiah (first respondent herein) is working at Vijayapura Hobli from 11-11-2002. With the above noting the file was submitted to the Secretary to the Government, revenue Department. The Secretary to the government submitted the file to the Minister for Revenue on 27-5-2002 with the observation that "it is not proper to change within a period of two weeks". The Minister for Revenue ordered on the file on 17-7-2005 to "transfer Sri. K. V. Sreenivasa Murthy as Revenue Inspector, Vijayapura Hobli as per the request made by Hon'ble M. L. A. " Thereupon annexure-'a. 2' Order dated 18-7-2005 was issued by the Government transferring and posting the petitioner as Revenue Inspector at Vijayapura Hobli in the place of the first respondent. However, no posting was given to the first respondent C. Munishamaiah. In implementation of Annexure-'a. 2' order dated 18-7-2005, the Deputy Commissioner, bangalore Rural District, passed Annexure-'a. 3' order dated 20-7-2005 transferring and posting the petitioner Sri. K. V. Sreeni vasa murthy as Revenue Inspector, Vijayapura hobli, in the place of the first respondent Sri. C. Munishamaiah. In Annexure-'a. 3' order also, no posting was given to the first respondent. In such circumstances, the first respondent filed Application No. 5841/2005 challenging Annexures-'a. 2' and 'a. 3' orders before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. Taking note of the fact that the first respondent had already filed a Review Application dated 23-7-2005 before the cadre Management Authority in terms of paragraph 11 of the Government Order dated 2-11-2001, the Tribunal disposed of the application directing the Cadre Management authority to consider the Review Application filed by the first respondent and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the Tribunal. It was also directed that in the meantime, if the first respondent had not been relieved, the official respondents should not give effect to the impugned order of transfer, insofar as the first respondent was concerned, till final orders were passed by the Cadre Management Authority on the Review Application filed by the first respondent. It is not disputed that as on the date of disposal of Application No. 5841/ 2005, the first respondent stood relieved from the post of Revenue Inspector at Vijayapura hobli. The Cadre Management Authority rejected the Review Application of the first respondent as per Annexure-'a. 9' order dated 25-8-2000. For rejecting the Review Application, the Cadre Managing Authority stated two reasons :

(3.) WE have heard Sri. S. V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent and have considered the averments contained in the Writ Petition and the materials placed on record.