- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 23618 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: DR. H. ASHOK AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE NAGU NAIK OCC: DISTRICT SURGEON DISTRICT HOSPITAL UDUPI-576101 R/AT NO.12-2-57 (C) (2) SAI RADHA 'PRIDE', F WING, 2ND FLOOR, 201, BRAHMAGIRI, BANNANJE, UDUPI-576101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV. FOR SRI SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560023. 3. DR.NITYANANDA NAYAK EYE SPECIALIST DISTRICT HOSPITAL UDUPI-576101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 R3 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, WRIT OR DIRECTION, BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/07/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.619/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO DECLARE THE SAME AS UNSUSTAINABLE 1UNDER LAW AS WELL AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2025 in Application No.619/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) refusing to interfere with the order of cancellation of transfer under order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-A3). 2. Learned senior counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar appearing for petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is in the cadre of Medical Officer/District Surgeon was posted to work as District Surgeon, Udupi District under notification dated 02.03.2024 and he was working as such for the last one year. However, he submits that after nearly one year from the date of posting of the petitioner, order of posting of the petitioner is cancelled under order dated 02.03.2024, asking the 3rd respondent to take charge of the said post, with a direction to the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 to report at the office of the second respondent to seek for further posting through counseling. Learned senior counsel would submit that the impugned order of cancellation of transfer is opposed to Government Order dated 25.06.2024. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that once the order is implemented and as the petitioner was working for nearly an year, the order of posting the petitioner was not available for cancellation. Once the order is implemented, the order would spent itself and it would not available for cancellation. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that the impugned order of cancellation is camouflage for the order of transfer. Learned senior counsel would refer to the statement of objections as well as the order dated 18.10.2024 in Application No.1765/2024 passed by the Tribunal, where the petitioner therein had questioned the order of punishment which was allowed remanding the matter for fresh enquiry and submits that taking note of the earlier allegations, petitioner appears to have been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 transferred by the respondent-authorities. Learned senior counsel would also submit that since there is no provision or authority to cancel the order which is already implemented, prays for allowing the writ petition. 3. On the contrary, learned Addition Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob would support the order passed by the Tribunal and vehemently contends that there are complaints against the petitioner and if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, he would take advantage of the same while functioning as District Surgeon, Udupi District. Learned AAG would also submit that on the complaints of general public, a report was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, which was taken note by the concerned Minister and on the approval of the concerned Minister, the present impugned order of transfer is passed. The intention of obtaining the report from the Authority was to shift the petitioner from the post of District Surgeon, Udupi District. Under impugned order, the word “Cancellation” is used, which would mean transfer of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 petitioner from the post of District Surgeon, Udupi District. Learned AAG would submit that in the original file, complaints against the petitioner are noted and decision is taken to transfer the petitioner. However, in the impugned order the word “Cancellation” is used, which shall mean as transfer. Further, learned AAG would submit that since the post of District Surgeon is administrative post, it would not fall for counseling as such, he was shifted under Annexure-A3 dated 04.02.2025, with a direction to report to the office of the second respondent to seek further posting through counseling. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the petition needs to be allowed, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted as District Surgeon, Udupi District under order dated 02.03.2024 (Annexure-A2). He was working as such, till Annexure-A3 order dated 04.02.2025, wherein the order dated 02.03.2024 posting the petitioner as District Surgeon to Udupi District is cancelled. The impugned order dated 04.02.2025 counseling transfer, reads as follows: “DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§ PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ qÁ: ºÉZï.J¸ï. C±ÉÆÃPï, ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁj, ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄ DgÉÆÃUÀå PÉÃAzÀæ, ºÉ©æ, PÁPÀð¼À vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, GqÀĦ f¯Éè EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß D¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:DPÀÄPÀ 820 JZïJ¸ïJZï 2023, ¢£ÁAPÀ:02.03.2024 gÀ°è f¯Áè ±À¸ÀÛçaQvÀìPÀgÀÄ, GqÀĦ f¯Éè E°èUÉ ªÀUÁð»¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PÀÆqÀ¯Éà eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹zÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, qÁ: ¤vÁå£ÀAzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPï, £ÉÃvÀæ vÀdÕgÀÄ, f¯Áè D¸ÀàvÉæ, GqÀĦ f¯Éè EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ºÁUÀÆ DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ »vÀzÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ F PÀÆqÀ¯Éà eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ f¯Áè ±À¸ÀÛçaQvÀìPÀgÀÄ, GqÀĦ f¯Éè ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ‘PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjPÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1958’gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 68 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¢üPÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°èj¹ DzÉò¹zÉ. qÁ: ºÉZï.J¸ï. C±ÉÆÃPï, EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀªÀjUÉ ªÀ»¹, vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¸ÀܼÀ ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÁV DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§ PÀ¯Áåt ¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ°è PÁAiÀÄðªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ C¢üPÁjAiÀÄ vÀdÕvÉUÀ£ÀĸÁgÀªÁV ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ eÁjAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ Pˤì°AUï ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀܼÀ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.” A reading of the above order would make it abundantly clear that the Government cancelled the order dated 02.03.2024, posting the petitioner as District Surgeon, Udupi District. Further it indicates that respondent No.3 is put in additional charge of the post of District Surgeon, with a direction to 3rd respondent to take charge of the post of District Surgeon, Udupi District, with immediate effect. It also indicates that the petitioner shall report to second respondent, seeking further posting through counseling. In terms of the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-A3), the intention of the Government seems to cancel the earlier order dated 02.03.2024, posting the petitioner as District Surgeon, Udupi District. Admittedly, it cannot be read as transfer and cancellation would have far-reaching consequence. 6. As contended by the learned AAG, if there were complaints against the petitioner, it is not that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 respondents have no authority or power to deal with such complaints. The Karnataka Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and other Staff) Act, 2011 and Karnataka Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staff) Rules, 2025 provide for such situations and the respondents could have resorted to such procedure. 7. Moreover, in pursuance of the order dated 02.03.2024, the petitioner is working for the last one year and the transfer which is already implemented could not have been cancelled as it was not available for cancellation. When once the order is implemented, the same would not exist for cancellation. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.104179/2021 (Dr.Shashi Patil V/S The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare Services and another) disposed of on 05.01.2022 in identical fact situation has held as follows: “The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal could not have relied - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 upon the decision in Smt.P.V.Poornima’s case (supra) is misplaced. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.P.V.Poornima’s case (supra) had made it clear that while issuing orders of modification or cancellation of transfer order, there must be specific or detailed reasons for such subsequent modification or cancellation of transfer order. The said decision in Smt.P.V.Poornima’s case (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. No reasons are assigned in the present case while canceling the earlier order of transfer under notification dated 12.03.2020. No fault could be found with the Tribunal in relying upon the decision of this Court in Smt.P.V.Poornima’s case (supra). The contention that by virtue of the interim order the petitioner had continued in the post of District Leprosy Control Officer, Dharwad would give no right for the petitioner to remain in the said post since the petitioner had already completed her tenure long back.” 8. The Tribunal without going into the question as to whether the order already implemented would be available for cancellation has proceeded to dismiss the application. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31717-DB WP No. 23618 of 2025 9. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.619/2025 dated 23.07.2025 is set aside. Consequently, impugned order bearing No.DPÀÄPÀ 926 ºÉZïJ¸ïf 2024 dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-A3) is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9