Transferred twice in 4 days, Karnataka High Court backs inspector’s second move

The order added, “The Police Establishment Board is the authority competent to decide the transfer and posting of police inspectors. The subsequent approval is, therefore, not an approval by an authority which had no jurisdiction over the matter.” 

Justice H Shanthi Bhushan upheld an inspector’s second transfer.

Transferred twice in four days

The police inspector was transferred from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Bengaluru, to Byadarahalli Police Station on May 10, 2026, and joined there on May 11. Three days later, on May 14, he was transferred again, this time to Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station. Another inspector was posted to Byadarahalli in his place.

The inspector challenged the May 14 transfer order before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), arguing that it was a premature transfer and violated the Karnataka Police Act, which provides a minimum one-year tenure for officers in operational posts. He also argued that the Police Establishment Board had not approved the transfer.

After considering his plea, the tribunal cancelled the May 14 transfer order, holding that it was premature and that the required approval of the Police Establishment Board had not been obtained. Another officer who was placed in his place because of the transfer order challenged the tribunal’s order before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the police establishment subsequently approved the transfer and that the defect, if any, was procedural.

State defends second transfer

The officer’s counsel contended that his transfer from Byadarahalli just after joining was premature and violated the statutory provisions governing police officers’ tenure and transfers. He argued that the required approval of the Police Establishment Board had not been obtained.

The State argued that the Police Establishment Board subsequently considered and approved the May 14 transfer on June 8, 2026. Therefore, the absence of prior approval was only a procedural defect that was later cured.

The State also submitted that police transfers are administrative matters and courts should interfere only when a transfer violates a statutory provision, is made by an incompetent authority ot is motivated by mala fides.

Court upheld second transfer

The court held that merely because the officer reported at Byadarahalli on May 11, it cannot be said that he acquired an indefeasible right to continue at that place for a period of one year. It added that the law provides a minimum tenure for transfers in specified circumstances.

The court upheld the May 14 transfer order, which posted him from Byadarahalli to Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station after three days of his joining.