Writ Petition No. 23522 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4724 WP No. 23522 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 23522 OF 2024 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SRI MADHUVAN M S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA M B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, M.R.S. DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, SHIVAMOGGA-577203. (BY KUM. ARCHISHMA S. KALLURAYA, ADV. FOR SRI. SATISH K., ADV.) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES), CAUVERY BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 2. MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVOOR ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALURU - 575 004. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4724 WP No. 23522 of 2024 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES), MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, KAVOOR ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALURU-575 004. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.R.S. DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, SHIVAMOGGA -577 203. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMIL, ADV. FOR R2 & R3 SMT. PADMA S UTTUR, ADV. FOR R1) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-3 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.08.2024 (ANNX-D) AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.08.2024 BEARING NO PRAVYA (AAA AND MAASAMAA)/SAPRAVYA(AA AND MAASAMAA)/LE(AA)/SALEAA (AA)/ HISA-102/ PASSED BY THE R-3 (ANNX-D) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (SL.NO.1 UNDER THE HEAD - SENIOR ASSISTANT) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4724 WP No. 23522 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel Miss.Archishma S.Kalluraya for Sri.K.Sathish, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel Sri.Mohammad Shamil for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Smt.Padma S Uttur, learned counsel for
Decision
respondent No.1. Perused the writ petition papers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Assistant, a Group-C post in the second respondent-Mangaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (‘MESCOM’ for short). The petitioner is working at Bhadravathi since 05.09.2020. On the request of the petitioner, he was transferred from Bhadravathi to Shivamogga under O.M. dated 12.07.2024 passed by respondent No.3. In pursuance of the said transfer order, the petitioner is said to have relieved of his duties from Bhadravathi on 27.07.2024 and he reported to duty at Shivamogga on 26.07.2024. Within a month thereafter, under impugned O.M. dated 22.08.2024, respondent No.3 passed order, canceling the earlier transfer order dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4724 WP No. 23522 of 2024 12.07.2024. Questioning the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of transfer at Annexure-A dated 12.07.2024 was not available for cancellation and it has spent itself on its implementation. Further, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had reported to duty at transferred place on 26.07.2024. On petitioner reporting to duty at Shivamogga, respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not have cancelled the transfer which was already implemented. In that regard, learned counsel places reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P.No.104179/2021 disposed of on 05.01.2022 and prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Mohammad Shamil appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner who was working at Bhadravathi was transferred to Shivamogga at her request and it was not a normal transfer. As such, he supports the impugned order, canceling order of transfer - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4724 WP No. 23522 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024. Further, he submits that transfer effected under O.M. dated 12.07.2024 is withdrawn at the instance of respondent No.1. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner who was working at Bhadravathi was transferred under Annexure-A/O.M. dated 12.07.2024 to Shivamogga. The petitioner reported to duty at the transferred place on 26.05.2024 on getting himself relieved from Bhadravathi. On the petitioner reporting to duty at transferred place and when his duty report is accepted, order of transfer dated 12.07.2024 spent itself and it was no more in existence. In that circumstance, respondent No.3 could not have cancelled the order of transfer which was already implemented. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.104179/2021 disposed of on 05.01.2022 at paragraph 12 has held as follows: “The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal could not have relied upon the decision in Smt.P.V.Poornima’s - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4724 WP No. 23522 of 2024 case (supra) is misplaced. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.P.V.Poornima’s case (supra) had made it clear that while issuing orders of modification or cancellation of transfer order, there must be specific or detailed reasons for such subsequent modification or cancellation of transfer order. The said decision in Smt.P.V.Poornima’s case (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. No reasons are assigned in the present case while canceling the earlier order of transfer under notification dated 12.03.2020. No fault could be found with the Tribunal in relying upon the decision of this Court in Smt.P.V.Poornima’s case (supra). The contention that by virtue of the interim order the petitioner had continued in the post of District Leprosy Control Officer, Dharwad would give no right for the petitioner to remain in the said post since the petitioner had already completed her tenure long back.” 7. In view of the above, the impugned order of cancellation of transfer dated 22.08.2024 would not stand to reasons and it is legally unsustainable. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4724 WP No. 23522 of 2024 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the transfer is canceled at the behest of respondent No.1 cannot be accepted, when respondent No.3 is the authority to effect transfer in respect of Assistants in MESCON. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned O.M. bearing No.¥À æªÀå(D&ªÀiÁ¸ÀAC)/¸À¥À æªÀå(D&ªÀiÁ¸ÀAC)/¯É©/¸À¯ÉC©/»¸À-102 dated 22.08.2024 is quashed, insofar as petitioner is concerned. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56