AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—Heard.
The orders of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (''KAT'' for short) dated 9.12.2013 and 26.9.2013 in Application No. 7346/2013 and Application No. 4389/2013 vide Annexures-A and B are called in question in these writ petitions.
The records reveal that the 3rd respondent who was working in CID as on 18.4.2013 was transferred as Assistant Commissioner of Police (''ACP'' for short) of Vijayanagar Sub-Division, Bangalore by virtue of the order dated 18.4.2013 during General Elections to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. After the elections were conducted, another order came to be issued on 11.7.2013 by which the 3rd respondent was re-posted to CID from Vijayanagar Sub-Division, Bangalore city on the ground that the 3rd respondent was on deputation to Vijayanagar Sub-Division, Bangalore city during General Elections. Subsequently, the order relating to General Transfer/Posting of DSsP/ACsP was passed by the Government of Karnataka on 25.9.2013 by which the petitioner is posted as ACP to Vijayanagar Sub-Division i.e., in place of Respondent No. 3. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 3 questioned the order dated 11.7.2013 by which he was re-transferred from Vijayangar Sub-Division to CID, before the KAT in Application No. 4389/2013, which came to be allowed on 26.9.2013. The said order dated 26.9.2013 passed by the KAT was questioned by the petitioner herein before this Court in Writ Petition No. 47234/2013, which came to be disposed of by the order dated 22.10.2013, with liberty to the petitioner to approach KAT by filing separate application. Accordingly, the petitioner herein approached KAT in Application No. 7346/2013 which is rejected by the order dated 9.12.2013. Consequently, the 3rd respondent has taken charge as ACP, Vijayanagar Sub-Division once again. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has taken charge as ACP, Vijayanagar Sub-Division in the last week.
Sri Kalyana, learned advocate for Respondent No. 3 taking the Court through the entire material on record and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 17123-17124/2013 and connected matters disposed of on 16.4.2013 submits that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as the 3rd respondent was transferred to Vijayanagar Sub-Division on 18.4.2013 by virtue of the direction issued by the Election Commission and the said transfer order was a general transfer order made with the concurrence of the Election Commission.
The said submission is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner.
The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The order Annexure-A1 dated 18.4.2013 makes it amply clear that the same was passed during the General Election to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. In the order, two letters of the Election Commission are referred to. Even the State Government has treated the said order dated 18.4.2013 as the one made for the purpose of election and consequently passed another order dated 11.7.2013 re-transferring all the Officers who are transferred by virtue of the earlier order dated 18.4.2013 to their previous places of postings. In the order dated 11.7.2013 the State Government has clarified that all the Officers transferred under Order dated 18.4.2013 are treated on deputation for election work during election and therefore they are re-transferred to their previous places of postings. Subsequently general order of transfer was made as per Annexure-A7 dated 25.9.2013 transferring certain of the Officers to certain places.
From the above, it is clear that the Orders dated 18.4.2013 and 11.7.2013 are not the orders of general transfer, but they are made for the purpose of election duty. The general order of transfer was made only on 25.9.2013 after completion of elections. Same is the view taken by this Court in number of Judgments including in the case of Sathyanarayana N. Kudur vs. The State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 53835/2013 (S-KAT) disposed of on 16th December 2013. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal dated 9.12.2013 in Application No. 7346/2013 vide Annexure-A cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
At this stage, Sri Kalyan, learned advocate for Respondent No. 3 submits that Respondent No. 3 has got hardly nine months service prior to the date of attaining the age of superannuation and therefore he may be permitted to retire as ACP in Vijayanagar Sub-Division only.
The said submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Having regard to the fact that Respondent No. 3 is having only nine months service, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be met with if the Respondent No. 3 is permitted to make representation before the concerned Authority for his retention at Vijayanagar Sub-Division. Such representation shall be made within three weeks from this date. The decision shall be taken by the concerned authority within six weeks from this date. Since the 3rd respondent is working as ACP at Vijaynagar Sub-Division, same will continue till six weeks from this date.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed with the above observations.