Karnataka High Court Quashes Transfer Order of Vigilance Officer, Citing Discomfort and Unsubstantiated Justifications
➡️The petitioner, Sri Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar works as a Depot Manager at Ranebennur Depot, Haveri Division, under the North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC). He was transferred to this position from the Vigilance Department on June 13, 2024. The petitioner has spent his entire service in the Vigilance Department, and is in the last leg of service, as he is said to be left with 24 months of service. This transfer was confirmed on July 27, 2024. The petitioner has challenged these orders, stating that the transfer is unfair and causes him professional difficulties because he has been working in the Vigilance Department for a long time.
#KarnatakaHighCourt #TransferOrder #VigilanceOfficer
➡️The primary legal issue in this case was
🔹Whether the transfer of the petitioner from the Vigilance Department to the post of Depot Manager is arbitrary and unjustified.
🔹Whether the shortage of Depot Managers is a valid ground for transferring an employee at the end of his career.
#AdministrativeDiscretion #EmployeeRights
➡️The petitioner's submitted that
🔹The petitioner has spent his entire career in the Vigilance Department and is now being shifted to a different discipline just before retirement, causing undue hardship.
🔹He is willing to serve in any location but within the Vigilance Department.
🔹The justification of a shortage of Depot Managers lacks substantive evidence.
➡️The Respondent Department rebutted the submissions of the petitioner stating
🔹The transfer was made in the interest of the organization due to the shortage of Depot Managers.
🔹The petitioner’s objections were considered, but the administrative necessity required his transfer.
#WorkplaceStability #JudicialReview
➡️The Court observed that
🔹There is no doubt, that administrative exigency can be a reason for the Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee, from one place to another, as the transfer is an incidence of service.
🔹It cannot be that such transfers would be in violation of the statute or operative guidelines. Such violation is sans countenance and the subject violation undoubtedly is unsustainable.
🔹Compelling an employee to switch disciplines at the end of service is unjustifiable and could cause discomfort.
🔹The court noted that the respondents’ claim of a shortage of Depot Managers lacked substantive evidence.
🔹The Coordinate Bench had earlier directed the petitioner to submit a representation, which was considered but did not provide a satisfactory resolution.
🔹The petitioner’s willingness to work in any location within the same department was not adequately considered.
#NWKRTC #WritofCertiorari
➡️ The High Court allowed the petition of the Petitioner & quashed the transfer order and its subsequent confirmation.
