A transfer imposed in lieu of disciplinary action, without inquiry, is punitive and unsustainable.

The petitioner, a KSOU Data Entry Operator, had been posted at the Belagavi Regional Centre since 2020.

A previous transfer from Belagavi was withdrawn while a writ petition challenging it was pending, and that petition was consequently withdrawn.

In June 2026, he sought transfer to Dharwad on spousal grounds, stating that his wife worked in Navalgund and his children studied in Dharwad; he renewed the request in September 2026, asserting that he had completed four years at Belagavi.

Before those requests were decided, KSOU transferred him from Belagavi to Kollegala, citing administrative exigencies.

In its objections, KSOU stated that complaints had been received against him and that the transfer was made in his interest instead of taking action against him.

The petitioner challenged the transfer under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the transfer order was, in substance, a punitive transfer based on allegations and therefore unsustainable without an inquiry.

2. Whether the petitioner’s pending representations for transfer to Dharwad on spousal grounds required consideration.

A transfer made in the ordinary course for administrative exigencies is distinct from one imposed by way of, or in lieu of, punishment; a transfer founded on allegations of misconduct and punitive in substance is liable to be set aside if imposed without the inquiry required by service jurisprudence.

The Court relied on Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC 1399, for the rule that a transfer based on an irrelevant ground or made in lieu of punishment is illegal.

The Court also relied on M. Sumithra v. Bangalore University, W.P. No. 25903/2005, decided 22 December 2005, for the principle that misconduct must be established through a lawful inquiry before it can ground punitive action.

The Court also referred to the KSOU (Adoption of Service Rules of State Government) Statutes, 2009, which adopt, among other provisions, the Karnataka Civil Service Rules.

Transfer guidelines were relevant to the direction to consider the petitioner’s request, subject to his entitlement under the applicable rules and guidelines.

Although the transfer order described the move as necessary for administrative exigencies, KSOU’s objections disclosed that the transfer was prompted by complaints and was intended to shift the petitioner instead of taking action against him.

No inquiry had been initiated or contemplated, so the Court treated the transfer as punitive in substance rather than a routine administrative transfer.

The Court rejected KSOU’s argument that the transfer was merely incidental to service, and noted that the petitioner’s request for Dharwad remained undecided.

It therefore found the transfer unsustainable while leaving KSOU free to inquire into the allegations in accordance with law.

It set aside the 7 September 2026 transfer order and directed KSOU to continue the petitioner at Belagavi.

KSOU was directed to consider his representations of 24 June and 7 September 2026 seeking transfer to Dharwad on spousal grounds, if he was entitled to that relief under the applicable law and transfer guidelines.

The University was also left at liberty to initiate an inquiry into the complaints and take appropriate action in accordance with law.