Act Of Public Servants Using Political Influence For Transfer & Posting May Constitute Sole Ground For Declining Relief In Constitutional Jurisdiction: Karnataka HC

The Court held thus while observing that the act of public servants causing political influence may constitute a sole ground for declining relief in constitutional jurisdiction.

The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal calling into question the impugned order whereby the employee’s Writ Petition was favoured and the punishment of compulsory retirement as affirmed in the Departmental Appeal was nullified with directions to the employer to reinstate Petitioner without back wages and consequential benefits.

The bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar observed, “this court with lot of penury at heart has been observing the employees invoking political influence inter alia in matters of transfer & posting, which essentially belong to the exclusive domain of the employer/competent authority, who has to take a call after adverting to a host of factors. Political interference in service matters is undesirable, to say the least, inasmuch as irrelevant factors would figure and that would affect public administration and the interest of the employer.”

Advocate H M Muralidhar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Suma Kedilaya appeared for the Respondent.

The appellant-Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited argued that the employee's refusal to work at her designated post, citing health issues and invoking political influence, warranted voiding the order of the Single Judge. Despite being directed to report for duty, she remained absent, which constitutes misconduct. The employee Veena M countered while informing the Court that due to health problems and difficulties with the posting location, she was not able to join.

The Court observed, “It hardly needs to be stated that the employer alone is best suited to judge as to the existence of exigencies of service requiring transfer & posting; courts cannot run a race of opinions.”

“Again it is the employer who decides which employee should work where, subject to statutory exceptions.”, the Court added.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Dr.P.L.Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469, where according to the Court SC observed, “ where an employee who is unauthorisedly absent does not report back to duty and offers any satisfactory explanation, or where the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorized absence. Such disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of increments.”

The Court said that there may be some exceptional cases where a citizen complains to the elected representatives seeking MINUTES for favour, which are a case apart. However, the Court held, "the act of public servants causing political influence is a matter of deprecation and that may constitute a sole ground for declining relief in constitutional jurisdiction. A person knocking at the doors of writ court should not have blemish-worthy conduct, hardly needs to be reiterated".

The Court noted that findings of guilt arrived at in a disciplinary proceeding have presumptive sanctity and therefore they cannot be readily interfered with, more particularly when a delinquent employee’s Departmental Appeal too has failed on merits.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and nullified the impugned order.