- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO. 82, SHAKTI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - LEGAL MR. DR KABADE. 2. THE DIRECTOR - HR KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO. 82, SHAKTI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SUMIT CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SUMITRAPPA Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 WORKING AS DGM-HR KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO. 82, SHAKTI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. YANKAPPA B HALABAVI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O BASSAPPA WORKING AS DGM-HR KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO. 82, SHAKTI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI GOWTHAMDEV. C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THE CAPTIONED WRIT APPEAL b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.04.2025 IN WRIT PETITION No.7577/2025, REJECTING APPELLANT No.1's APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF STAY, AND CONSEQUENTLY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Issue notice. 2. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 accepts notice. 3. With the consent of the counsel appearing for the respondents, the appeal has been finally heard. 4. The appellants (Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.) have filed the present appeal impugning an interim order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No.1/2025 in Writ Petition No.7577/2025. The said application was filed by the appellant seeking vacation of the stay order dated 14.03.2025, whereby the transfer of respondent No.1 as DGM (HRD) to SGS was stayed. 5. It is respondent No.1’s case in the writ petition that the transfer was not in conformity with the transfer guidelines and therefore such premature transfer was impermissible. The learned Single Judge had granted an interim order dated 14.03.2025 staying the transfer of respondent No.1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 6. It was also pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that the transfer order, which is impugned before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7577/2025 did not bear the signatures of the Managing Director [MD] of the appellants and this was also one of the grounds for challenging the said order. 7. The appellants had filed an application for vacation of the stay order dated 14.03.2025, inter alia contending that no such blanket stay order could be granted. The learned counsel for appellant had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in KPCL v. Suma H: WA.No.2749/2019 (S-TR), in support of his contention. It was contended that there were no allegations of malafide and the said decision was squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the learned Single judge did not accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants. 8. We consider it apposite to reproduce the relevant extract of the impugned order, which sets out the reasons for premature transfer of respondent No1. The same reads as under. "(v) It is contended that the premature transfer of petitioner was necessitated due to following reasons: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 (a) The respondent No.3 who was due to retire in May, 2025, made a request to a member of parliament for his promotion to the post of General Manager (HRD) and transfer him to the head office at Bengaluru, since his family is residing in Bengaluru. However, since the respondent No.3 did not meet the criteria for the promotion to the post of General Manager, (HRD), the Managing Director who had the power to consider the request of the respondent No.3 for a transfer to Bengaluru under clauses 3.11, 3.12 and 6.0 of the transfer guidelines, passed the impugned order transferring the respondent No.3 to the head office at Bengaluru and transferred the petitioner from the head office to SGS as DGM-HRD. (b) It is alleged that there were serious allegations of misconduct and malafides against the petitioner in the process of selecting and appointing nurses at the staff hospital in Ambikanagar which was the subject matter of dispute in W.P.No.106025/2023. It is also alleged that there was complaints of disorderly behaviour and workplace harassment against the petitioner by his fellow employees and therefore, in the interest of maintaining a safe work place for its employees, the respondent No.1 took the decision to transfer the petitioner to SGS by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 impugned order. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, it is prayed that the order of stay granted by this Court be vacated forthwith." 9. The learned Single Judge had concluded that the reasons as set out in the application indicated that the transfer of respondent No.1 was not necessitated due to any administrative exigencies, but was for extraneous reasons. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the said reasons could not be construed as administrative exigencies. 10. Insofar as the decision in the case of KPCL v. Suma H., (supra) is concerned, the learned Single Judge accepted that no reasons were required to be furnished when the transfer of an employee is effected. Submissions 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submits that in terms of clauses 3.11 and 3.12 of the applicable guidelines, an employee could be transferred prematurely by the MD, or by any other authority with the prior approval of the MD. Since the present transfer was ordered by the MD, the fact that the transfer - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 was premature, could not provide any reasons for impugning the same. 12. Mr. Nandakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents countered the said submissions. He advanced submissions on two fronts. First, he submited that in terms of clause 3.12 of the guidelines, in case an employee is transferred by an authority other than the MD, the said authority has to furnish a proposal to the MD setting out the reasons for proposing such transfer. He also submits that in the present case, no such proposal setting out the reasons was submitted. Therefore, the transfer order is liable to be set aside. Second, he submits that the MD was holding concurrent charges and therefore was not entitled to exercise substantive powers of the post of the MD. He referred to the decision of this Court in N.A. Sunil v. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited delivered on 10.01.2020 in WP.No. 51334/2019 c/w WP.No.39290/2018 (S-TR). - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 Reasons and conclusion 13. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to set out the clauses 3.11 and 3.12 of the guidelines. The same are reproduced below: "3.11 PREMATURE TRANSFER: Transfer of an employee ordered before his completing the minimum duration of service indicated in rule 3.02 or 3.04 is a premature transfer. Such premature transfer shall be ordered by the Managing Director. The EDs/Chief Engineers & Equivalent who are the transferring authority for the employees of the rank of AEEs & Equivalent and below may also order such premature transfer (other than those under Rule 3.04) within their respective jurisdiction under the delegated powers for good and sufficient reasons. However, after issue of orders, they may report to the MD the reasons in detail for making such transfers. 3.12 MANAGING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL IN CERTAIN CASES: Transfer on request or on administrative grounds shall be ordered conforming to the norms stipulated above. The MD may however order transfer of any employee in the interest of service of the Corporation notwithstanding the above norms. Where transfers, are proposed to be ordered beyond the norms stipulated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 above by any other Authority empowered to order transfer, such Authority shall obtain specific prior approval of MD duly indicating the reasons in his proposal to the MD for making such transfer." 14. A plain reading of the clause 3.12 does clearly indicates that notwithstanding the norms as set out in the guidelines, the MD has the power to transfer an employee in the interests of the service of the Corporation. In the present case, the order indicates that it had been approved by the MD. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the file regarding respondent No.1 was put up before the MD and he had ordered the transfer. He submits that the MD had specifically approved the file and put a noting on the file. He contended that such an order cannot be construed as an order of transfer by any other authority but by the MD, as all necessary reasons for transfer were contained in the said file. 15. We note that the learned Single Judge had rejected the application for vacation of stay not on the ground that the order was not passed by the MD. The question whether the file had been put out before the MD and he had ordered the transfer was not examined by the learned Single Judge. The only grounds on which - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 the application for vacation of stay has been rejected by the learned Single Judge, is that the reasons for transfer as set out in the application indicated that it was not necessitated due to any administrative exigencies. We are unable to concur with the said reasoning. The fact that an employee has been transferred on account of disorderly behaviour at workplace and in order to ensure safe workplace for other employees clearly falls within the scope of an administrative exigencies. Any person responsible for administrative control of a department may find it necessary to transfer employee(s) in order to maintain the environment of the workplace. This ground is clearly a reason for better administration. 16. The contention that the MD of the appellants could not exercise substantive powers of the post of MD is insubstantial. There is no dispute that the MD was appointed in accordance with law and is responsible for discharging the duties of the office. Clearly, if the MD is found to be remiss of his duties, he shall be liable for the same under the relevant statutes. It follows that he also has the attendant powers for discharge of his duties. 17. The decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in N.A. Sunil (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel, is not applicable - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 to the facts of the present case. In that case, the MD of a company was given additional charge in duties of another post and therefore, the learned Single Judge had concluded that 'the MD placed with additional charge of duties of a post (in charge of current duties) cannot exercise the substantive power of that regular post’. Although we have reservations as to the broad proposition as set out in N.A. Sunil (supra), it is not necessary for this Court to examine the same in the present case. This is because the said decision is clearly not applicable in the given facts. 18. Prima facie, we are of the view that the appellant's contention that the transfer orders had been passed by the MD must be accepted. This is because the file had been placed before the MD and the transfer orders were issued pursuant to his clearing the same. Therefore, the interim order staying the transfer of respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the impugned order, as well as vacate the stay order dated 14.03.2025. 19. However, in order to enable respondent No.1 to make arrangements for his transfer, we consider it apposite to direct that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34108-DB WA No. 675 of 2025 the transfer order would not be given effect to for a period of three weeks from date. 20. Pending applications are disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SD, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56