- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27091 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: NIRANJAN ARADHYA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O VEERARADHYA SURVEY SUPERVISOR OFFICE OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BAGEPALLI-562 101 CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GATE NO.3, M S BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS KR CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.08.2025 Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO. 2986/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION NO.2986/2025; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO.SSLR.15019/24/2025 DATED 13/14.06.2025 (SL.NO.1 UNDER THE HEAD INSPECTOR) (ANNEXURE-A4 OF APPLICATION NO. 2986/2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner, a Survey Supervisor belonging to the Department of Survey Settlement and Land Records, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by order dated 26.08.2025 in Application No.2986/2025, wherein the petitioner’s challenge to O.M., dated 13/14.06.2025, transferring the petitioner from Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District to Karwar is rejected, holding that the transfer guidelines will not come to the aid of the petitioner when the transfer has been based on a complaint. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is working as a Survey Supervisor in the Department of Survey, Settlement and Land Records and at present, the petitioner is working at the Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapur District, in pursuance to O.M., dated 18.06.2021 (Annexure-A1). The petitioner is elected as an Office Bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association, Bagepalli Taluk, in terms of the certificate dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-A2). Under impugned O.M., dated 13/14.06.2025 (Annexure A4), the petitioner is transferred from the office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bagepalli Taluk, to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Karwar, on the basis of a complaint. The said impugned O.M., of transfer was the subject matter of Application No.2986/2025 before the Tribunal, wherein it was contended that the petitioner belongs to Group-C post and being an Office Bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association is entitled for exemption under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 Clause 8(1) of the Transfer Guidelines dated 12.05.2025. The Tribunal, with an observation that when the transfer is based on a complaint, the transfer guidelines would not come to the aid and assistance of the petitioner and with a further observation that in case of enquiry into such serious allegations, the petitioner needs to be out of the mischief zone, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Vinaya Keerthy.M., for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Vinaya Keerthy.M., would submit that the petitioner was posted to work as Survey Supervisor to the Office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bagepali, under O.M., dated 18.06.2021 and as on the date of impugned O.M., dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 13/14.06.2025, transferring the petitioner from Bagepalli to Karwar, the petitioner had completed his term of four years. However, he submits that since the petitioner was elected for the first time as an Office Bearer of the Karnataka State Government Employees Association, the petitioner is entitled for exemption in terms of Clause 8(1) of Transfer Guidelines dated 12.05.2025. However, he submits that the Tribunal without appreciating the fact that the petitioner is an Office Bearer of the Association, only on the basis of a vague letter of the concerned MLA, the petitioner is transferred, citing the reason of complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record two documents along with a memo dated 22.09.2025 and one of the document is a letter dated 02.06.2025 addressed to the Revenue Minister by the local MLA of Bagepalli Constituency. It is submitted that no complaint of public is enclosed to the said letter and when vague allegations are made it is not proper and impermissible to take note of the said letter to transfer - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 any Government Servant. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition and to set aside the impugned O.M., of transfer insofar as petitioner is concerned. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath would submit that since the petitioner’s transfer is based on the letter of the local MLA wherein he has stated that there is a complaint from the public against the petitioner, the transfer of the petitioner is justified. The respondent has filed an affidavit of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records and referring to the said affidavit, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that as soon as the concerned authority receives further directions from the office of the Revenue Minister, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following point would arise for our consideration: “Whether the respondent-State is justified in transferring the petitioner from the office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bagepalli to the office of the Assistant Director of Land Records, Karwar under impugned O.M., dated 13/14.06.2025, on the reason of a complaint?” 7. The answer to the above point would be in the ‘Negative’ and the transfer of the petitioner is opposed to Government order dated 12.05.2025 – Transfer Guidelines, for the following reasons: The petitioner is working as a Survey Supervisor, which is a Group-C post. The Group-C employees are provided a tenure of four years in a place of posting. The petitioner was posted to the office of the Assistant Director - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 of Land Records, Bagepalli, under O.M., dated 18.06.2021. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed his term as on the date of impugned transfer O.M., dated 13/14.06.2025. However, the petitioner is elected as an Office Bearer of Karnataka State Government Employees Association, which is evident from Annexure-A2, a certificate issued by the Election Officer of the Karnataka State Employees Association dated 28.10.2024. The Government order dated 12.05.2025 provides exemption to Officer Bearers of the Association and the same is further clarified in an unofficial note dated 18.06.2025 (Annexure-A3). Clause 8(5) of the Government order dated 12.05.2025 reads as follows: “8(5) MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÝ°è D ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁgÀzÀ CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄVAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸À¨ÁgÀzÀÄ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¥ÀzÁ¢üPÁgÀzÀ CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 3 wAUÀ¼À°è ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqÉAiÀÄ¢zÀÝ°è CAvÀºÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀUÁð»¸À§ºÀzÀÄ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É CªÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄgÀÄZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ£ÁzÀ°è 2£Éà CªÀ¢üUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ CvÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 The above Clause provides exemption to a Government servant who is elected as an Office Bearer of the Association till completion of his term and the said exemption is for a maximum of 2 terms. 8. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was elected as an Officer Bearer of the Association for the first time. Therefore, he would be entitled for the benefit of Clause 8(5) of the Government order dated 12.05.2025. 9. The next question would be whether on a complaint of the nature received, the petitioner could have been transferred in the facts and circumstances of the case? 10. It is open for the State Government to transfer a Government servant including an Office Bearer on the basis of a proper complaint by the public or even by people representatives. Such a complaint shall be clear - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 and shall be specific. On a vague complaint, no Government servant shall be transferred. 11. The Commissioner of the Survey, Settlement and Land Records has filed an affidavit dated 25.09.2025. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit reads as follows: “5. I submit that, as the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature, the competent authority has transferred him as per the provision of para 3(1) and 6(4) of General Transfer Guidelines issued by the Government on 12.05.2025. 6. I further submit that, as the allegations against the petitioner are not specific in nature, the competent authority has anticipated the further directions from the office of Hon’ble Revenue Minister to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority will frame charges forthwith once securing necessary documents along with the complaints.” (Emphasis supplied) The Commissioner in one breath states that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature and on the other breath the Commissioner would state that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 allegations against the petitioner are not specific in nature. The statements in the affidavit of the Commissioner is contradictory in nature. When the Commissioner himself is of the opinion that the allegations against the petitioner are not specific in nature, the said complaint could not have been the basis for transferring the petitioner. The letter dated 02.06.2025 of the concerned Member of Legislative Assembly of Bagepalli is enclosed to the affidavit. The said letter reads as follows: “ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, ²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀ ¤gÀAd£ÁgÁzsÀå, C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÁUÉÃ¥À°è aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ f¯Éè EªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁUÉÃ¥À°è vÁ®ÆèQ£À°è zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀ CPÀæªÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¸ÀȶÖAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ¥ÁvÀæ ªÀ»¹ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÀ° ¸ÀȶָÀ®Ä ªÀÄÆ® PÁgÀtPÀvÀðgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¤gÀAd£ÁgÁzÀå, C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁUÉÃ¥À°è ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À E¯ÁSÉ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß aPÀ̧¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ f¯Éè¬ÄAzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉqÉUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉqÉUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 12. From the reading of the above, it could be said that the allegations are very vague and not specific. It would only state that the petitioner has played a major role in the creation of illegal documents in respect of Government lands and also in the matter of creating fabricated documents. The letter would not enclose any such complaint received from the public, though it states that he has received complaints from the public. The letter would not give particulars or details of such lands or the villages in which such lands are situated. On such vague complaints, if Government servants are transferred, no Government servant would be safe and no Government servant would be in a position to work or carryout their duties in a fearless manner. 13. In other words, it would not mean that people’s representatives cannot seek transfer of Government servants working within their constituency. They could seek transfer of such Government servants by placing on record material against such Government officials. The - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 transfer could not be on vague and unspecific complaints. On going through impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal without looking into the nature or gravity of the complaint dismissed the application only on the ground that when the complaint is made, Transfer Guidelines would not come to the aid of the Government servant, which is not proper. 14. The respondents-State places much reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.3612/2025 dated 22.08.2025 (Sri.S.Venkateshappa vs. State of Karnataka and Another) to contend that the People Representative could seek transfer of Government servants working within his constituency. The said decision would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the above S.Venkateshappa’s case, he was issued with show cause notice in respect of his non-availability in the office when the Deputy Commissioner visited the office of the Tahsildar. Moreover, in the petition, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 S.Venkateshappa averred that in a Bagar Hukkum Committee meeting, certain differences arose between him and the MLA, Bangarpet on one of the issue. When such being the circumstance, this Court had come to the conclusion that the transfer at the instance or recommendation of a MLA itself would not vitiate the transfer. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the following order: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. b) Order dated 26.08.2025 in Application No.2986/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru is set aside. c) Consequently, O.M., dated 13/14.06.2025 (Annexure-A4) insofar as petitioner is concerned is quashed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38659-DB WP No. 27091 of 2025 d) Liberty is reserved to the respondent/State to effect transfer or to take any other action against the petitioner, if there is specific complaint from the public or representative of the people and if the State decides to initiate an enquiry by issuance of charge memo. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9