- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104036 OF 2025 (S-TR) BETWEEN: MR. VENKATESHA K.K., AGE. 47 YEARS, STAFF NO. 547503 DIVISIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK, ASSOCIATES, SUBSIDIARIES AND RRB VERTICAL CORPORATE, CREDIT AND ASSOCIATES, WING, HEAD OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU- 560002, R/O: “BANASIRI” MIG 98, NEAR MUTTU KIRANI SHOP, KHB SATTUR, UDAYGIRI EDIGARA BHAVAN ROAD, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD- 580009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONAL MANAGEMENT SECTION, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT VERTICAL HUMAN RESOURCES & PUBLIC RELATION WING, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIDE BEARING NO. REF: HRWPM: 2025:ADH:547503:1, DATED 16/06/2025, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-E AND RELIEVING ORDER BEARING Ref: ASRV MISC/179/2025, DATED 21/06/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AS NULL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question orders dated 16.06.2025 and 21.06.2025 by which the petitioner is transferred from Bengaluru to Vijayapura to head the Division as a Divisional Manager. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Raghavendra A. Purohit for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. Suresh S. Gundi for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows. 4. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank’, for short). After having joined the service, the petitioner has risen to higher echelons of office and is presently in the cadre of Senior Management Grade Scale IV and is working as Divisional - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 Manager. The issue in the lis pertains to the deputation or transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner, after having been promoted as Senior Management Grade Scale IV, is deputed from Canara Bank to Karnataka Vikasa Grameena Bank on 02.05.2023. In term of deputation was for a period of 3 years. The petitioner before the expiry of 3 years is brought back to Canara Bank on 19.04.2025. The bringing back of the petitioner to Canara Bank is cancelled by a subsequent order dated 15.05.2025. In the interregnum, what transpires is, the Karnataka Vikasa Grameena Bank and other regional rural banks merged and formed Karnataka Grameena Bank. 5. Therefore, the Karnataka Vikasa Grameena Bank ceased to be in existence. On 02.06.2025, the petitioner is repatriated to the Canara Bank after the cancellation on 15.05.2025. Thus, the petitioner comes back and reports to the Canara Bank at Bengaluru. Barely 14 days thereafter, the petitioner is again, now, not deputed but transferred on 16.06.2025 from Bengaluru Divisonal Office to Vijayapura Regional Office. It is this that is called in question in the subject petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds that are set out in the petition contending that the petitioner is made to move from office to office, post to post right from 02.05.2023 till the impugned order of transfer dated 16.06.2025. The learned counsel takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the petitioner suffers from a benchmark disability to an extent of 50% and therefore he is exempted from routine transfers unless administrative exigencies could ensue. Therefore, would submit that the transfer now made merely 15 days of him reporting to Bengaluru is contrary to the policy, in particular, with regard to the disabled employees. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing to the respondent would again take this Court through the statement of objections to contend that the Rules or guidelines on which the petitioner is seeking to place reliance upon, is not applicable to the employees. It is only from the general managerial cadre and above. The petitioner being an employee or an officer in the Canara Bank is susceptible to transfer, as transfer is an incidence of service. The petitioner being a disabled employee is of no avail, as he has not been transferred anywhere outside the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 State of Karnataka. He has been shown indulgence to be kept only in Karnataka but since there is administrative exigency in Vijayapura, as theft had been happened in a branch at Vijayapura, lack of appropriate Divisional Manager would create a serious problem, is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. He would, in all, seek dismissal of the petition contending that the petitioner should report to duties to the transferred place. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The service of the petitioner in the bank need not be reiterated. It is necessary to notice certain dates and events. On 02.05.2023, the petitioner, in terms of the policy of deputation, is deputed from the Canara Bank to the Karnataka Vikasa Grameena Bank. The policy of deputation, is an admitted fact, that the deputation once made would be for a period of 3 years. But an order comes to be passed on 19.04.2025 bringing the petitioner back or repatriating to the Canara Bank even before the expiry of 3 years - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 on a specious plea that the petitioner was earlier within the Canara Bank that also would count for the period of deputation. Be that as it may. That is not the issue in the case at hand. 10. The said order of 19.04.2025 comes to be cancelled on 15.05.2025 on the score that the Karnataka Vikasa Grameena Bank ceased to be in existence, as it gets merged with the other Regional Rural Banks to one Regional Rural Bank-the Karnataka Grameena Bank. The petitioner was an employee of the Canara Bank, a sponsor bank, to the Karnataka Vikasa Grameena Bank is brought back to the Canara Bank on 02.06.2025. Therefore, the drill of dates are this way. On 02.05.2023 the first order, on 19.04.2025, the repatriation order, on 15.05.2025, the cancellation of repatriation, on 02.06.2025 the repatriation order again. If things would stand thus, the situation would have been altogether different. 15 days thereafter comes the impugned order. The impugned order, transfers the petitioner from Bangalore to Vijayapura. The petitioner now rushes to this Court calling in question the said order. The contention inter alia of the petitioner is that the policy guidelines with regard to equal opportunity for financial year 2025-26 protects a disabled - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 employee from repeated transfers. The relevant Clause is as follows: “7. A person with disability or a care giver of dependent with benchmark disability may be exempted from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints.” 11. The policy is enunciated by the Canara Bank, which is directed to be followed by the Commissioner of Disabilities, which in terms of the statute has a power to direct adhering to the policy. The Government of India in terms of its Office Memorandum also directs adhering to the policy. A relevant portion of the Office Memorandum insofar as it germane, reads as follows: “I. Exemption from routine exercise of transfer/ rotational transfer in respect of Government employee, who is a caregiver of Person with Disability dependents: (i) A Government employee who is a care- giver of dependent daughter/ son/ parents/ spouse/ brother/ sister with Specified Disability. as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints. (ii) The term "Specified Disability as defined in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. 2016, covers (1) Locomotor disability including leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 muscular dystrophy and Acid attack victims (ii) Blindness (iii) Low-vision (iv) Deaf (v) Hard of hearing (vi) Speech and language disabilities (vii) Intellectual disability including specific learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (viii) Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a) Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease (b) Blood disorder- Haemophilia, Thalassemia and Sickle cell-disease and (x) Multiple disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness and any other category of disabilities as may be notified by the Central Government. (iii) The term 'Specified Disability' as defined herein is applicable as grounds only for the purpose of seeking exemption from routine transfer/ rotational transfer by a Government employee, who is a care- giver of dependent daughter/ son/ parents/ spouse/ brother/ sister as stated in Para I (1) above. 3. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of all appointing authorities under their control, for information and compliance. The Department of Public Enterprises may ensure to give effect the above guidelines in the all the Central Public Sector Enterprises.” 12. On a conjoint reading of the policy and the Government Office Memorandum which directs adherence to the policy, what would unmistakably emerge is, that the petitioner is being shifted repeatedly on a routine exercise notwithstanding his protection of being a disabled employee. 13. Transfer, is trite, an incidence of service. The incidence is always regulated either by a statute or the orders - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 depicting guidelines. The guidelines in the case at hand though is applicable to the general managerial level, the policy with regard to the disabled employees, would become applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was brought back to Bengaluru on 02.06.2025, and 15 days thereafter is now moved from Bengaluru to Vijayapura. It would undoubtedly be contrary to the policy with regard to the treatment of disabled employees in an organization. The petitioner is a disabled employee is not in dispute. The policy being applicable to the bank is not in dispute and if the policy is applicable, the transfer of the petitioner from Bengaluru to Vijayapura would undoubtedly be contrary to Clause 7 supra. There is an interim order operating in the case at hand. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent admits that there is a dire need of a Divisional Manager at Vijayapura. If there was to be a dire need of Divisional Manager at Vijayapura, in the 2 months of vacuum, the bank could have filled up the post. They have not done so. Therefore, the exigency that the respondents project, the need for a disabled employee to go from Bengaluru to Vijayapura, is unacceptable. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14671 WP No. 104036 of 2025 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. The proceedings of the Executive Director bearing REF:No.HRWPM:2025:ADH:547503:1 dated 16.6.2025 passed by the respondent at Annexure-E and the relieving order bearing No.ASRV. MISC/179/2025 dated 21.06.2025 issued by the respondent vide Annexure-F is quashed. ii. The petition shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the orders. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE kmv ct-gtb