- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5924 WP No. 23496 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 23496 OF 2024 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SRI. PARAMESHWARA NAIK H., S/O. HANIYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, UNIT 2, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, RURAL SUB DIVISION, MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANK BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES), CAUVERY BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009. 2. MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVOOR ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALURU 575 004. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5924 WP No. 23496 of 2024 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES), MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, KAVOOR ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALURU 575 004. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), RURAL SUB DIVISION, MANGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, SHIVAMOGGA 577 203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YATHISH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHWIN G RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MUHAMMAD SHAMIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-3 PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 22.08.2024 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Petitioner, a Junior Engineer working in the 2nd respondent/Mangaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5924 WP No. 23496 of 2024 cancellation of transfer dated 22.08.2024 Annexure E bearing No.PraVya(Aaa&MaaSamAa)/SaPraVya(Aaa& MaaSamAa)/Le(Aa)/SaLeAa(Aa)/HiSa-102 insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Heard Sri Shashank Bhat, learned counsel for Sri Satish K, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yatheesh S, learned counsel for Sri Ashwin G. Raj, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Sri Muhammad Shamil, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who was working as a Junior Engineer at Thirthahalli was transferred under Official Memorandum dated 06.07.2024 to Shivamogga Rural. The petitioner is said to have been relieved at Thirthahalli on 09.07.2024 and reported at transferred place Shivamogga Rural on the same day. Within a month thereafter, the order of transfer is cancelled under impugned Official Memorandum - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5924 WP No. 23496 of 2024 dated 22.08.2024 with a direction to the petitioner to report back to duty at Thirthahalli. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that once the order of transfer is implemented, it would not remain for cancellation. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.104179/2021 dated 05.01.2022. Thus he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Sri Muhammad Shamil, for the 2nd respondent would submit that transfer of the petitioner from Thirthahalli to Shivamogga Rural was cancelled at the instance of 1st respondent and the withdrawal is in the public interest, thus he prays for dismissing the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that on instructions received from the concerned Ministry, the same was passed on to the 2nd respondent, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5924 WP No. 23496 of 2024 with a request to modify or cancel the transfer. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that arise for consideration is as to "Whether the impugned order of cancellation of transfer requires interference?" My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative' for the following reasons. 7. Admittedly the petitioner, who was working at Thirthahalli as Junior Engineer was transferred under Official Memorandum dated 06.07.2024; he was relieved from Thirthahalli and he reported to duty at the transferred place i.e., at Shivamogga Rural on 09.07.2024. Thereafter, under impugned Official Memorandum dated 22.08.2024 the transfer effected vide Official Memorandum dated 06.07.2024 is cancelled, but no reasons are forthcoming for cancellation of the transfer. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5924 WP No. 23496 of 2024 8. The contention of the 1st respondent that on instructions from the Ministry concerned and as to the initial appointment of the petitioner was by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, the KPTCL ought to have effected transfer, cannot be accepted. 9. On formation of respondent/MESCOM the petitioner was transferred to MESCOM and from then onwards he has become employee of MESCOM. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/MESCOM is the competent authority to effect transfer insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 10. Admittedly the transfer has been implemented by permitting the petitioner to report to duty at the transferred place i.e., Shivamogga Rural on 09.07.2024. When the transfer was implemented, there was no reason for cancellation of transfer as on 22.08.2024. The Division Bench of this Court in the above stated writ petition at paragraph 4 has held as follows :- "4. Perusal of the note sheet would reveal that the cancellation of the transfer order was made on the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5924 WP No. 23496 of 2024 sole ground of request of the concerned Minister. Further perusal of the communication of 14.07.2022 would indicate that the Under Secretary, Department of Energy, has recommended for transfer, placing reliance on the approval of the Minister concerned. No reasons are forthcoming as to the circumstances under which the order of transfer dated 06.07.2022 has been rescinded. The Division Bench in the case of Dr. Shashi Patil has observed that when the order of transfer is given effect to and implemented, notification having spent itself the same was not available for cancellation. Further the Division Bench has also noted the observations of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of P.V.Poornima vs. State of Karnataka AIR Online 2020 Kar 1676, wherein the Court has stipulated that order of modification or cancellation must be accompanied by the specific or detailed reasons for subsequent modification or cancellation". The decision of the Division Bench would aptly apply to the facts of the present case. 11. In the above circumstances, I pass the following :- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5924 WP No. 23496 of 2024 ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The impugned Official Memorandum (Annexure E) dated 22.08.2024 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56 CT:SNN