The Managing Director may order premature transfers without recording reasons under KPCL transfer rules.

The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer (Mechanical) due to retire in April 2027, challenged a transfer order dated 15 July 2026.

He contended that the transfer from Yelahanka, Bengaluru, to a distant posting was contrary to the Corporation’s transfer guidelines, particularly because he had only about nine months of service remaining and his family and aged mother were in Bengaluru.

He had earlier challenged a redeployment order, submitted a representation dated 29 April 2026, and reported to the redeployment post before returning to Yelahanka on 1 July 2026.

The Corporation maintained that the transfer was made pursuant to a High-Level Committee staffing review and with the Managing Director’s approval.

The judgment identifies the challenged posting as Bellary Thermal Power Station, although the petition’s narrative refers to Raichur Thermal Power Station.

1. Whether the transfer order was liable to be quashed as arbitrary or contrary to the Corporation’s transfer guidelines, given the petitioner’s imminent retirement and personal circumstances

2. Whether the Corporation could transfer the petitioner in the interests of service and administrative exigency on the basis of the High-Level Committee report and the Managing Director’s approval

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Corporation’s HRD Manual, Chapter 8.1.

It noted that Clauses 3.13.01 and 3.13.02 set out the ordinary timing and procedure for general transfers and transfers by other authorities.

Relying on Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. Suma, the Court stated that Clause 3.12 has overriding effect and permits the Managing Director to transfer an employee at any time, without assigning reasons.

It also relied on Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. Raju, concerning the effect of the Managing Director’s approval of a transfer, and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University v. Ra. Agila, which holds that an employee should join the transferred posting while pursuing available remedies against the transfer.

The Court further recorded the general principle that transfer is an incident of service and is ordinarily open to judicial interference only where grounds such as mala fides or lack of authority are established.

The Court found that the transfer was made in the Corporation’s interest and to meet administrative requirements identified through the High-Level Committee’s staffing review; it also recorded that the petitioner’s experience was needed at the power station.

The transfer order was issued by the Director (Human Resources) after specific approval from the Managing Director, as required under the Corporation’s procedure.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court held that the transfer power could be exercised in the interests of service and found no sufficient ground to interfere.

The petitioner’s impending retirement and personal circumstances did not displace that conclusion, though his pending representation was directed to be considered after he reported for duty at the place of posting.

It directed the Corporation to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 29 April 2026, subject to his reporting at the transferred posting, and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two weeks of his reporting.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.