- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48132-DB WP No. 34863 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 34863 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SMT. AISHWARYA K.S, W/O. SANDEEP. V, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ADAGANAHALLI CIRCLE, HEBBALU HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602 R/AT MADHUVANAHALLI TOWN, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSORE 571602. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY H M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48132-DB WP No. 34863 of 2025 3. THE TAHASILDAR, K.R NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571602. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN A. No. 4554/2025, DATED 12.11.2025 (ANNNEXURE-A) REJECTING TO STAY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRANSFER BEARING No. MYSDCEST2/CCA(11)4/ 2025/E-1007826, DATED 30.10.2025 (ANNEXURE-A2, PLACED AT ANNEXURE-B) TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER FROM ADAGANAHALLI CIRCLE, K. R. NAGAR TO MOLEYUR CIRCLE, SARAGURU TALUK AS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ON THE GROUND OF DERELICTION OF DUTY AS PER SE ILLEGAL AND INOPERATIVE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR; b. ISSUE, AN APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48132-DB WP No. 34863 of 2025 DIRECTION CONTINUING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AT THE PRESENT PLACE IN ADAGANAHALLI CIRCLE, K R NAGAR TALUK TILL SHE SUBJECTED TO TRANSFER AFTER COMPLETION OF THE TENURE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner, who has called in question the second respondent's order [which is signed on 30.10.2025] in her application in No.4554/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'], is aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2025 in the Application in No.4554/2025. The Tribunal, by this impugned order dated 12.11.2025, has refused the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48132-DB WP No. 34863 of 2025 petitioner's request for stay of the operation and implementation of the second respondent's order and for interim direction to the respondents to continue her in the post of ‘the Village Administrative Officer' at Adaganahalli Circle, Hebbalu Hobli, K R Nagara Taluk, Mysuru. 2. The Tribunal has relied upon clauses 5[2] and 6[1] of the relevant Transfer Guidelines to opine that the applicant cannot have any grievance when the Transfer Guidelines permits the transfer because: [a] under clause 5[2] a Government Servant can be transferred to a non-executive post to avoid tampering of witnesses or hamper the enquiry when the departmental enquiry or criminal case is pending, and [b] clause 6[1] of the Transfer Guidelines clarifies that any Government Servant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48132-DB WP No. 34863 of 2025 instead of being kept under suspension can be transferred from the post. Sri Vijaya Raghava Sarathy H M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vikas Rojipura, a learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, are heard on whether this Court must intervene with the Tribunal’s order. 3. The petitioner is issued with the show- cause notice dated 30.09.2025 imputing that the petitioner has refused to participate in the Socio and Economic Survey and she must show cause against initiation of action. The petitioner has filed her response on 04.10.2025 stating, amongst others, that given the spread of the jurisdiction for the conduct of the survey from her office, she has regularly visited different villages for the survey and on the remaining days, she has worked in the concerned Nadakacheri. The second respondent, in the impugned order that is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48132-DB WP No. 34863 of 2025 signed on 30.10.2025, has opined that the explanation offered is not just. The second respondent has also recorded that she is censured with an advice, and notwithstanding the same, the second respondent has issued orders for the petitioner's transfer from her current position. 4. Prima facie, this Court must opine that the question is: if the petitioner is censured and with the conclusion of the proceedings on the imputation, whether the second respondent's decision to transfer the petitioner from her current place could be justified only because a transfer is permissible under the clause [6] of the Transfer Guidelines. The clause [6][1] of the Transfer Guidelines reads that a Government Employee can be transferred as against being kept under suspension. 5. This Court opines that the Tribunal, in recording its initial opinion, has not considered the material circumstances, and that has resulted in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48132-DB WP No. 34863 of 2025 rejection of a request for an interim order despite a prima facie case. The petitioner’s continuation in the present position may not be of any significance if there is no inquiry contemplated because there will be no reason to apprehend that the petitioner will tamper with evidence, or that she will impede an inquiry. 6. As such, this Court opines that there must be interference with the Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2025 staying the operation of the second respondent's order that is signed on 30.11.2025 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in her present post unless the circumstances otherwise justify and subject to the orders of the Tribunal in the pending application. This Court must also hasten to add that this Court's intervention as aforesaid is on the prima facie reading of the material and the Tribunal must decide on the outcome of the application on its own merits upon hearing the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48132-DB WP No. 34863 of 2025 learned counsels for the rival parties. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the Tribunal's order dated 12.11.2025 and staying the second respondent's order signed on 30.10.2025 with a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in the present post subject to the observations as aforesaid. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AN/-