- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2142 WP No. 100368 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100368 OF 2026 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SMT. ROOPA D/O. JASINTH RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS ASSISTANT STOREKEEPER, SIRSI DIVISIONAL STORES, HESCOM, SIRSI-581401, DIST. UTTARAKANNADA, (NOW UNDER TRANSFER). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY KUMAR BHAT AND SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, HESCOM, NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, P .B ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580025. 3. SRI. SUBRAMANYA G. GOUNDAR AGE. MAJOR, OCC. METER READER, HESCOM SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 13.01.2026 BEARING NO.H.C.O-07/B-28/2025-26/CYS-9862 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF SERIAL NO.4- PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ONLY IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; AND ETC. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.18 10:31:07 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2142 WP No. 100368 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a Group-C employee working under the respondent-Hubbali Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM) has called in question the Office Memorandum dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure-E), whereby, she has been shifted from the post of Assistant Storekeeper, Sirsi Divisional Stores to meter reader City Division, Sirsi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Storekeeper on 10.10.2022 and had not completed the minimum tenure of 4 years prescribed for Group-C employees under Clause-8 of the Transfer Guidelines. It is further contended that the impugned order, though styled as “Administrative” is in substance punitive, retaliatory and issued immediately after she complained about the mismanagement and irregularities in stockyard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2142 WP No. 100368 of 2026 3. It is further contended that the transfer reverts to the post of meter reader notwithstanding her medical condition and earlier accommodation. It is submitted that no reasons are assigned in the order and the action is intended to silence a whistle-blower rather than serve any genuine administrative exigency. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned action is not a transfer, but a mere intra-office/intra-town adjustment within Sirsi town. The petitioner has been working at Sirsi continuously since 2007 and therefore, even otherwise, she has completed well beyond the minimum tenure prescribed under the Transfer Guidelines. Further, it is contended that the adjustment was necessary to ensure a transparency in ongoing enquiry into alleged stockyard irregularities. 5. It is further contended that the transfer guidelines do not apply to interim office arrangement made purely for administrative reasons and that the petitioner was not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2142 WP No. 100368 of 2026 discharging her duties satisfactorily and was reportedly issued office notes, which justified her relocation. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the impugned office endorsement dated 13.01.2026, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, can be sustained as a valid administrative adjustment, or whether it is vitiative as punitive or mala fide transfer contrary to the Transfer Guidelines?” 7. Though the respondents seek to categorize the impugned action as an intra-office adjustment, the Court cannot be guided by a mere nomenclature. The petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Storekeeper and is now directed to function as a Meter Reader, a role involving materially different duties, including field work. A change in the place of work coupled with a change in nature of duties, even within the same town, constitutes a transfer in substance, particularly when it alters the service conditions of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2142 WP No. 100368 of 2026 employee. The petitioner assumed the charge as an Assistant Storekeeper on 10.10.2022 and the impugned order is dated 13.01.2026 thus she had completed approximately 3 years 3 months, for a short of mandatory 4-year minimum tenure prescribed for Group-C employees as per Transfer Guidelines. No exceptional circumstances are recorded to justify deviation from the guidelines. 8. Question regarding whether it is permissible to transfer a common servant from one office to another office within the same headquarters in exercise of the power conferred and to take up the duties of a new post, purportedly by way of transfer, fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Sri S.N. Gangadharaiah, K.A.S Vs. State of Karnataka and Another1 (S.N. Gangadharaiah) and this Court at paragraph No.20 has held as under: “20. In the result and for the foregoing, we answer the question referred for consideration of the Full Bench as under: a) The Rules relating to transfer contained in the KCSRs and the definition of the term 'transfer’ 1 W.P.No.58375/2013 D.D 13.04.2015 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2142 WP No. 100368 of 2026 contained in Rule 8(49) of KCSR have no application for regulating transfer of Government servants as provided in the Government Order dated 07.06.2013. b) Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.RAMACHANDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS rendered in W.P.No.56164/2013 disposed of on 05.12.2013 does not lay down correct law, nor does it consider the decision of the Full Bench in the case of H.N.CHANDRU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS 2011(3) KLJ 562 which was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. c) Consequently, we hold that posting of a Government servant from one office to another within the same headquarters, to take up duties of a new post would tantamount to transfer within the meaning of Clause 3 (d) of the Government Order dated 07.06.2013.” 9. The sequence of events is of crucial relevance: i. Written complaint dated 05.12.2025. ii. Enquiry initiated on 15.12.2025. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2142 WP No. 100368 of 2026 iii. Newspaper reports on alleged irregularities. iv. Impugned order dated 13.01.2026. The proximity in time between the complaint and the transfer, coupled with absence of any individual reasons in the order, lends credence to the petitioner's contention that the action is not a routine administrative reason. 10. If the transparency in enquiry was the objective, the normal course would be segregate the officials against whom allegations are made, not the complainant. Shifting the petitioner under the guise of administrative reasons, “gives a action colour of victimization”, which the Court cannot countenance. It is not disputed that the petitioner was earlier accommodated in a less strenuous post owing to health issues. The impugned order completely ignores this aspect, rendering the decision arbitrary and disproportionate. On cumulative consideration, this Court is of the considered view that: i. The impugned action is not a mere intra-office adjustment but a transfer in substance. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2142 WP No. 100368 of 2026 ii. It is a premature contrary to Clause-7 and 8 of the Transfer Guidelines and suffers from taint of mala fides, having been issued immediately after petitioner raised allegation of irregularity. 11. Accordingly, the point framed for considered is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The Office Memorandum dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure-E), insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. iii. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue as an Assistant Storekeeper, Sirsi Division Stores. iv. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from conducting or completing the enquiry into the alleged irregularity, strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47