G P REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the Official Memorandum No. HUD 619 MLR 78 dated 2nd Nov., 1978 issued by the Government of Karnataka transferring him as Manager, City Municipal Council, Bellary, (Exhibit D).

(2.) As a member of the Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service, the petitioner was working as an Octroi Superintendent, City Municipal Council, Raichur. In Official Memorandum No. HUD 619 MLR 78 dated 16-9-1978 (Exhibit B), the Government transferred and posted the petitioner as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Harihar, in the place of respondent No. 2. By the same order, the Government transferred respondent No. 2 who was then working as Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Harihar, as Office Manager, City Municipal Council, Bellary. In pursuance of the order of transfer, the petitioner reported for duty at Harihar on 28-9-1978 while respondent No. 2 proceeded on leave without handing over charge to the petitioner and without reporting for duty at Bellary. By the impugned order the Govt. has cancelled the transfer of respondent No. 2 from Harihar to Bellary and has reported him to Harihar and has transferred the petitioner from Harihar to Bellary.

(3.) The principal case of the petitioner is that the Harihar Town Municipal Council has not passed a resolution by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of Councillors as required by Sub-section (2) of S. 327 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 22/64) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requesting for his transfer from that Municipality and therefore the Government had no authority to transfer him from Harihar to Bellary. The petitioner has also urged that his transfer by Government in about a month's time particularly when he had obeyed its order is unjustified. In his return, respondent No. 2 has justified the order of the Government. Among others, respondent No. 2 has pleaded that the Government has cancelled his transfer on a representation made by the President of the Town Municipal Council to retain him at Harihar as per his letter dated 21-9-1978, a copy of which is produced as Exhibit R1. As the principal question raised by the petitioner was one of power of the Government, I told the learned Government Pleader that a return by respondent No. 1 was not necessary and the case may be argued with reference to the records and the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, Shri V. C. Brahmarayappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, has produced for my perusal the original Secretariat File No. HUD 619 MLR 78 and has argued the case. From the papers produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader, I do not find the original representation if any stated to have been made by the President of the Harihar Town Municipal council. On the transfer of respondent No. 2, probably sensing that he was trying for cancellation of that order, some telegrams were sent to the Government requesting it not to cancel his transfer. In the telegrams various allegations have been made against respondent No. 2 which in the very nature of things cannot be examined by me in this writ petition. On 3-10-1978, the petitioner also had sent a telegram to the Government stating that he had assumed charge at Harihar and that respondent No. 2 had not handed over charge to him. On an examination of these telegrams, a note was put up on 4-10-1978 seeking orders on the evasive tactics of respondents No.2 and his refusal to hand over charge. On that note, one Shri V. S. Kadam, Under-Secretary to Government, noted as under and marked it to the Commissioner:-