Karnataka High Court
WP/19913/2026 of SRI DALESH AL Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 3 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33172-DB WP No. 19913 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 19913 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. DALESH AL S/O. LATE SRI
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 19913 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. DALESH AL
S/O. LATE SRI LAKSHMANE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
BANGALORE – 560 020.
R/AT. NO.779, 21ST CROSS,
JNANABHARATHI 2ND STAGE,
MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
BANGALORE – 560 079.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ECOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
HC-KAR
2.
THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST, AND (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE),
ARANYABHAVANA,
MALLESHWARAM, 18TH CROSS,
BANAGLORE – 560 003.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER
NO.B2/CEV/CR-02/2026-27
E-OFFICE
NO.KFD/HOFF/B2
(ENQ)/28/2026-LEGAL-KFD. OFFICE ORDER NO.28/2026-27, PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A6) AND
SET-ASIDE THE SAME AND TO CONTINUE THE APPLICANT AS
RANGE
FOREST
OFFICER,
BANGALORE
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Petitioner, a Range Forest Officer of the second respondent department is before this Court aggrieved by order dated 25.06.2026 in Application No.2909/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting his prayer to
HC-KAR
stay the officer order dated 16.06.2026, transferring the petitioner from the post of Range Forest Officer, Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) to the post of Range Forest Officer, Legal and ICT, Deputy Conservator of Forest office, Kolar Division, Kolar.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.C.M.Nagabhushana for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner reported to duty at BDA on 04.10.2024. While working as Range Forest Officer, BDA, a search was conducted by the Lokayukta police and crime No.11/2026 was registered under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the Lokayukta police recommended to the second respondent to shift the lien of the petitioner from the present place and based on the said recommendation, second
HC-KAR
respondent issued office order dated 13.06.2026 transferring the petitioner from BDA, Bengaluru to Kolar Division, Kolar. Learned counsel would submit that the question of tampering witness would not arise since the allegation does not relate to the act done by the petitioner during his official duty. Further, learned counsel would submit that second respondent without applying its mind, mechanically, based on the recommendation of the Lokayukta police, issued the impugned order. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner has made out prima facie case for grant of interim order of stay of the office order dated 16.06.2026.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents would support the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that the respondents, instead of keeping the petitioner under suspension, transferred him from Bengaluru to Kolar so as to enable fair investigation. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
HC-KAR
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The grounds urged by the petitioner are to be examined by the Tribunal at the time of final disposal. However, the Tribunal has rightly observed by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL [(2013) 16 SCC 147] that instead of keeping the petitioner under suspension, he might have been transferred.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that respondents would file objections within two weeks before the Tribunal. If objections are filed, the Tribunal shall endeavor to dispose of the application early.
HC-KAR
7. With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.
All contentions of the parties are left open.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
NC CT:RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4