Smt. R. Prabavathi vs The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue (Registration and Stamps)

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order dated 17.9.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in application No. 5642/2013 is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are serving as Senior Sub-Registrars. While the petitioner was working in the Sub-Registrar''s office at Devanahalli, Bangalore, she was transferred as Senior Sub-Registrar at Yelahanka, Bangalore by the order dated 30.4.2012. Subsequently, by the order dated 31.8.2013, the petitioner is transferred from Sub-Registrar''s office, Yelahanka to the Head Office at Bangalore. In the place of petitioner at Yelahanka, respondent No. 2 is posted to serve as Senior Sub-Registrar. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 31.8.2013, transferring her from the Sub-Registrar''s office, Yelahanka to the Head Office, approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in application No. 5642/2013 which came to be dismissed.

Though, respondent No. 3 herein is not a party to the litigation between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, he is also consequentially affected in view of the interim order granted by this Court in this writ petition. Hence, respondent No. 3 got himself impleaded in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, drawing attention of the Court to the Enquiry Report (Annexure ''E'') dated 23.8.2013 (wrongly stated as 23.10.2013 in the Enquiry Report) submits that no enquiry much less the enquiry relating to the grave charges is pending as on the date of transfer, and therefore, it was not open for the State to transfer the petitioner to the Head Office that too to a non-executive post, particularly, when such transfer is pre-mature. According to him, no departmental enquiry is pending consideration against her. Thus, he submits that the order of transfer is clearly contrary to paragraph 6(A) of the Government Order dated 7.6.2013.

Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of second respondent and Sri Pavankumar B. Bajentri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for third respondent oppose the writ petition by contending that the enquiry report dated 23.8.2013 submitted by the Enquiry Officer is yet to be accepted by the disciplinary authority, and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that no departmental enquiry is pending against her. They further submit that the petitioner is facing grave charges relating to tampering with official records. Thus, according to them, transfer of the petitioner is for administrative reasons.

The very contentions were raised by the petitioner as well as the respondents before the Tribunal below. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the transfer is made due to administrative exigencies.

In paragraph 6(A) of the Government Order dated 7.6.2013, it is stated that the competent authority, while effecting transfers, may ensure that the Government servant against whom there are serious charges or against whom departmental proceedings/criminal proceedings are initiated or pending or prosecution is being contemplated, shall not be posted to sensitive/executive posts and should be posted to non-executive posts where they cannot interfere with the investigations against them. It is further clarified that a Government servant against whom a departmental enquiry/criminal case is pending should not be deputed to a post on his request.

In the matter on hand, charges are framed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner to the effect that while the petitioner was working as Senior Sub-Registrar at Gandhi Nagar Sub-Registrar''s Office, page Nos. 126 to 137 of book No. 1 (volume 245) came to be missing and that the petitioner being the Head of the said office has failed to discharge her duties effectively. In that regard, the Enquiry Officer was appointed who gave a report as per Annexure ''E'' on 23.8.2013 (however, date is wrongly mentioned as 23.10.2013 as per the version of the petitioner''s counsel). There is nothing on record to show that such an enquiry report has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and the proceedings are closed against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the departmental proceedings are not pending against her. As aforementioned, paragraph 6(A) clarifies that if against an officer, departmental proceedings are initiated or pending, such officer shall not be posted to sensitive/executive posts and should be posted to non-executive post. Since, the departmental proceedings are not concluded as per law, petitioner cannot be posted to the executive post. Moreover, the enquiry report was also not brought to the notice of the tribunal while passing the impugned order. Be that as it may. Since, we find that the impugned order of transfer need not be interfered with, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.