SRI RAMAPRASAD R vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF REVENUE, & ORS.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the Tribunal which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

We find from the Annexure-F that the interim order dated 27.9.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.9199/2016 was challenged by the petitioner herein before this court in W.P.No.52908/2016 (S-KAT) and by order dated 7.10.2016 this court allowed the writ petition. Paras 7 and 8 of the said order read as under:-

"7. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Resultantly, the transfer order dated 24.9.2016 shall remain operative. It has been stated that the charge is already taken over by Respondent No.3 and therefore, we find it appropriate to further direct that by virtue of the present order, the petitioner will be entitled to continue as Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, Bengaluru whereas the Respondent No.3 shall be required to work as Sub-Registrar, Mulabagilu. Ofcourse, the aforesaid direction shall be in force unless any other transfer order is passed by the competent Authority in accordance with law in case of petitioner or respondent No.3.

It is also observed that the reasons recorded by this Court are only for the purpose of considering the legality of this case and will not prejudice the rights of the parties at the time final hearing of the matter before the Tribunal.

Petition shall stand allowed to the aforesaid extent, considering the facts and circumstances. Rule made absolute accordingly."

The Tribunal has now finally disposed of the application No.9199/2016 by the impugned order dated 30.3.2017 (Annexure-A) and has allowed the application with the following operative portion which reads:-

(i) Application is allowed and the impugned notification bearing No.Kam.E.26.Moo.No. Se.(2) 2016 dated 24.9.2016 at Annexure A-9 on the file of respondent No.1 is quashed.

(ii) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to continue the applicant in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, until his transfer as per the transfer guidelines.

(iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to hand over charge to the Applicant within a week from today and report before Respondent No.1 and seek posting order.

In the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that the applicant Sri.L.Shankar murthy (respondent No.3 herein) who was working as Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala, was transferred and posted as Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, by order dated 10.6.2016 and in pursuance of that order, he was relieved on 13.6.2016 and he took charge of the post from B.G.Kamala on her retirement on 31.8.2016, as per order dated 26.8.2016 passed by the Tribunal, but within a short period, he has been transferred contrary to transfer guidelines and without any cogent and sufficient reasons. The Tribunal has also noted that though the applicant was posted to Mulabagilu by the impugned order dated 24.9.2016, he has not reported for duty at Mulabagilu on the ground that there is no post of Senior Sub- Registrar at Mulabagilu and this fact is clear from Notification bearing No.RD.13.Moo.No.Se.(2).95 dated 31.5.1995. The Tribunal has also taken into account the contention of the petitioner that he reported for duty as Sub-Registrar in the office of Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar on 26.9.2016 and has observed that no document has been produced to establish the said fact. Further the Tribunal has noted that there is no mention in the impugned notification dated 24.9.2016 that it was approved by the Hon''ble Chief Minister. It is clearly stated in the impugned order that the learned Additional Government Advocate has filed reply statement admitting the facts as mentioned above.

In the face of the above factual findings, the contention of the petitioner that he has taken charge of the post at Indiranagar Sub-Registrar''s Office and therefore, he is entitled to continue to work as Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar cannot be countenanced. There is nothing in the subsequent notification dated 24.9.2016 to indicate that the transfer effected therein was to meet the administrative exigency, on the other hand, the sequence of events and the facts and circumstances noted above go to show that the earlier transfer order dated 10.6.2016 was changed suddenly and abruptly solely to accommodate the petitioner. Though transfer is one of the incident of Government service and the Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, yet the power to transfer has to be exercised according to rules, bona fide and for administrative exigencies. No doubt, the Government or the competent authority is the best judge to decide as to the manner of utilization of the services of its employees, yet it is now well settled that this power must be exercised bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in SESHRAO NAGORAO UMAP vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (1985) II LLJ 73 has pithily summarized the law on this aspect as under:

"It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers, cannot, but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, than is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair.

Although it is the management''s prerogative to decide ''who should be transferred and where'', the decision must be taken for administrative needs."

In the instant case, the facts noted by the Tribunal in the impugned order clearly manifests that the subsequent notification dated 24.9.2016 is actuated with a malafide intention to accommodate the petitioner herein to the post which was already taken charge by the third respondent prior to the said notification. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the status-quo ante by setting right the illegal exercise of power by the first and second respondents. Hence, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order. As a result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.