Transfer of public servants at the instance of members of legislature not illegal when there exists complaint: Karnataka High Court  

Observing that transfer of public servants will not be vitiated merely because it was made at the instance of members of legislature, but depends on the facts and circumstance of transfer of each individual case, the High Court has upheld State government’s decision of transferring a tahsildar at the instance of Bangarpet MLA.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind, passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by S. Venkateshwappa, who was transferred from the post of tahsildar (grade-1), Bangarpet taluk in Kolar district on a letter written by the MLA to the Revenue Minister in December 2024.

Complaints from public

The MLA stated in his letter that complaints were received from the local public that the petitioner-tahsildar, who assumed charge in July 2024, was not coming to office in time and he was also not responding to the grievances of the public.

On the other hand, the petitioner-tahsildar had said that his transfer was not only premature but was vitiated as it was based on recommendations by the MLA with whom he had raised certain differences over some issues in the meeting of the bagair hukum committee held in November 2024.

It was also claimed that the issue of why he was not in his seat when the Deputy Commissioner visited his officer in August 2024, was closed by accepting his explanation of being on field duty.

However, the Bench noted that premature transfer was permissible with the approval of the Chief Minister and this procedure was followed in the case of the petitioner.

Reference to SC verdict

While citing the apex court’s verdict in which it held that “there can be no hard-and-fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated” but depended on facts of individual case as it was the duty of the elected representatives in the legislature to express grievances of the people, the Bench said that in the present case the MLA had brought to the government’s notice about the complaints from the public against the petitioner-tahsildar.