Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI GIRISH K. C., S/O. CHUDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR
OF EXCISE, KIKKERI FARM
FOOD AND BEVERAGES (FRUITS) PVT.LTD.,
SHIVAMOGGA (W025),
SHIVAMOGGA – RD27
PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.60B,
BELADINAGALAU NILAYA,
TH
7 CROSS, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
PH. NO. 9535246118
EMAIL - GIREESHAKC@GMAIL.COM.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
TTMC BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING,
SHANTINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 027.
3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMIN)
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF EXCISE, TTMC BLOCK,
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR,
BANGALORE -560 027.
4. SMT. GOURAKKA M. PATIL,
W/O. RAVI B. PATIL,
MAJOR,
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
RANGE NO.47, ELECTRONIC CITY,
BUD - 8, BYATARAYANAPURA,
BANGALORE URBAN – 560 026.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADV. FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 07/01/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION
NO.4439/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned counsel Sri Satish K., for petitioner,
learned Additional Advocate General Sri Reuben Jacob along
with Sri V Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate
for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Chandrashekar L., learned
counsel.
2. The petitioner is an Inspector of Excise. He was
transferred to Bengaluru by transfer order dated 06.09.2023
and took charge at Bengaluru on 08.01.2024. The State
Government notified the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise
Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025 (for
short, ‘the Rules’), with effect from 14.05.2025. In accordance
with the Rules, a list of officers eligible for transfer was notified,
and the petitioner was transferred to Shivamogga by order
dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11). Under the same transfer
order, respondent No.4 was posted to the place of the
petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said transfer order
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at
Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application
No.4439/2025. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated
07.01.2026, rejected the application.
3. Learned counsel Sri K. Satish appearing for the
petitioner submits that, in view of the decision of this Court in
W.P. No.29579/2025 and connected matters (decided on
Smt. Chandrakala S.B. vs. State
20.02.2026 in the case of
of Karnataka and other batch of petitions), the impugned
transfer order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that, in
view of the judgment in the above-referred case, the transfer
of the petitioner is premature.
4. Per contra, Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional
Advocate General, along with Sri V. Shivareddy, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 3, submits that in view of the judgment cited above,
the transfer of the petitioner is premature. The learned
Additional Advocate General is unable to dispute that the very
same transfer order was the subject matter of the batch of writ
petitions. However, the learned Additional Advocate General
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
submits that, in view of the departmental enquiry pending
against the petitioner, the respondent authorities are entitled to
effect a premature transfer in terms of the proviso to Rule 5(2)
of the Rules.
4.1. It is further submitted that pursuant to the transfer
order, the petitioner was relieved on 25.09.2025 and reported
for duty on 08.10.2025 at the transferred place, i.e.,
Shivamogga. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 has
reported to the post earlier occupied by the petitioner prior to
the transfer. The learned Additional Advocate General submits
that if the transfer is disturbed, unintended consequences
would arise. It is therefore his submission that the order of
transfer be maintained.
5. Learned counsel Sri Chandrashekar L., appearing
for respondent No.4, in line with the submissions of the learned
Additional Advocate General, submits that pursuant to the
transfer made under the impugned order, respondent No.4 has
reported for duty at Bengaluru and has served for more than
six months. It is submitted that he has relocated from Bagalkot
to Bengaluru and that any disturbance to the present
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
arrangement would cause hardship. Learned counsel for
respondent No.4 therefore submits that his transfer, as made
under the impugned transfer order, be maintained.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, it is undisputed that the transfer order
dated 25.09.2025 was the subject matter before this Court in a
batch of writ petitions in W.P. No.29579/2025 and connected
matters, decided on 20.02.2026. In the said judgment, it has
been held that the petitioners/officers of the Excise Department
are entitled to the minimum tenure as provided under the
Rules.
7. In the present case, the petitioner is a Group-C
officer entitled to a minimum tenure of three years of service.
It is undisputed that the petitioner has not completed three
years of service. In view of the Rules and the judgment of this
Court, the transfer of the petitioner is premature. Accordingly,
the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure-A11) is set
aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
Learned
8. Additional Advocate General submits that, in
view of the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules, the
petitioner is facing a departmental enquiry and his case is fit to
be considered for premature transfer. The learned Additional
Advocate General therefore submits that appropriate
observations may be made granting liberty to invoke the
proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules. This Court in
Smt. Chandrakala S B ( supra ) while examining Rule 5 of the
Rules, has held as under:
“ 19. Rule 2(1)(e) of Rules 2025 as extracted
above provides for minimum period of service and
Group-C official/officers are provided three years
minimum period of service. Under Rule 5(2) of
Rules 2025, normally transfer shall not be effected
unless he/she has completed the minimum years of
service in that post. Therefore, unless and until an
official/officer completes minimum period of service
in the post held by them, transfer could not be
effected other than in terms of proviso to Rule 5(2)
by recording reasons for premature transfer.
20. Learned Additional Advocate General
Sri.Reuben Jacob referring to Rule 6(5) of Rules
2025 contended that, to rotate the officials who are
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
working for very long in executive post, the
officers/officials who have completed five years of
service in an executive post in Bengaluru Urban are
to be transferred to districts other than Bengaluru
Urban. Rule 5(3) (i) and (ii) of Rules 2025 also
would make it clear that transfer of officials or
officers shall be done in the order of priority taking
note of the completed minimum period of service in
executive or non-executive posts. On a combined
reading of Rule 2(1)(e), 5(2) and 5(3)(i) and (ii) of
Rules 2025, it is clear that, only on completion of
minimum period of service either in executive post
or non-executive post, transfer of official/officers of
Excise Department could be effected. However,
proviso to Rule 5(2) of Rules 2025 empowers the
competent authority to effect premature transfer in
public and administrative interest by recording
reasons. Admittedly, Rules 2025 came into effect
under Notification dated 14.05.2025. Even to give
effect to Rule 6(5) of Rules 2025, the officer/official
shall complete minimum period of service as
prescribed under Rule 2(1)(e) as well as Rule
5(3)(i). The service in an executive post in
Bengaluru Urban could be taken into consideration
when an officer/official becomes liable for transfer
upon completion of minimum tenure as stated in
Rule 5(2). In other words, Rule 6(5) would come
into play subject to satisfaction of Rule 5(2), i.e.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13217-DB
WP No. 546 of 2026
HC-KAR
upon completion of the minimum period of service
as prescribed under Rule 2(1)(e). ”
(emphasis supplied)
The observations made by this Court in the above-referred
judgment answers the submission made by the learned
Additional Advocate General. No further finding is necessary.
9. In the light of the above, the writ petition is
allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside.
Consequently, the transfer order dated 25.09.2025 is also set
aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
NC
CT:bms
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27