'Political Interference In Transfers Puts Public Efficiency & Good Administration In Peril': Karnataka High Court

Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while quashing orders passed by the Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (BESCOM), transferring an employee D Naveen. Though he was transferred to Varthur on December 9, 2020, he was not given a posting till April 5, 2021.

Rather, the petitioner was made to hand over charge to one TK Gangaraju, allegedly at the behest of a State Minister.

When the Petitioner approached the court, an order was issued posting the petitioner to Rajanakunte.

At the outset, the court directed BESCOM to let petitioner report at Varthur forthwith by giving effect to the transfer order. It added that the Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including the salary for the entire period, if not paid, as the petitioner was made to roam from pillar to post.

"In my view, political interference in transfers and posting of officers would result in politicization of public office, which would result in putting public efficiency and good administration to peril, the interference of any kind, be it written or oral."

KPTCL Counsel Rakshitha DJ had opposed the plea stating that transfer being an incidence of service, the petitioner cannot claim that he should occupy a particular place. It was also said that the allegation of political interference in the impugned transfer is imaginary as the Member of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to seek a particular Officer to perform the duties of his Office in his constituency.

Findings:

On going through the records the court noted, "For three months no order is passed and the order that is passed after three months, is what runs completely counter to the earlier order of transfer. The beneficiary of such retention is the eighth respondent (TK Gangaraju). The only inference that can be drawn is that, at the behest of the eighth respondent, the BESCOM did not issue posting orders in favour of the petitioner."

The court then referred to the transfer guidelines and noted that prior approval of the Chief Minister was not obtained for continuing the 8th respondent in place of the petitioner. It said, "Therefore, the act of continuance of the 8th respondent falls foul of the afore-quoted guidelines, which in unequivocal terms mandate prior approval to be sought."

On going through the note sheet produced by KPTCL the court said, "The note sheet also indicates the entire action of making the petitioner to move from pillar to post and continue the eighth respondent is at the behest of a Minister of the Government of Karnataka. Therefore, this is a case where the entire proceedings would get vitiated on account of political interference."

Finally the court directed, "Whenever KPTCL issues an order of transfer, without any loss of time BESCOM or any of the ESCOMs' to which the officers/employees are transferred shall issue consequential transfer / movement order strictly in obedience to the circular dated January 5, and complete the entire process within one week from the date of issuance of the order of transfer by the KPTCL, failing which there would be mushrooming of cases of the kind."

Case Title: D.Naveen v. State Of Karnataka

Case No: Writ Petition No.8952/2021

Date Of Order: 10th Day of November, 2021

Appearance: Advocate D R Ravishankar, for Petitioner; Advocate M.C.Nagashree, Aga, for R1; Advocate B.C.Seetharam Rao, A/W Advocate Anup Seetharam, for R8; Advocate Rakshitha D.J, for R2 To R7

Click Here To Read The Order