M. SANKARANARAYANAN IAS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 11-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
M. SANKARANARAYANAN !AS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 11, 1992 
IM.H. KANIA, CJ. AND G.N. RAY, J.] 
Civil Service: 
Transfe!"--Mala fides--lnference of-When arises. 
Administrative Law-Mala fides--Malice infacHnferences can be 
drawn on basis of factual matrU--Not on insinuations, conjectures and 
sunnises. 
Indian Administrative (Pay) Rules 1954: Indian Administrative 
D (Cadre) Rules: 
E 
F 
Rule 4-Cltief Secretary transferred as Secretary High Powered Com-
mittee-Ma/a fide!t-He/d not proved-Inference to be based on factual matrix 
not insinuation sitnnise or conjecture-Declaration of equivalence of post 
made by State Govemmel!t held valid. 
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service . 
(Karnataka Cadre) in 1957, and on May 5, 1990 he was holding the post 
of Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, and by a 
Notification dated May 5, 1990 was appointed a Chief Secretary to the 
Karnataka Government until further orders. 
In the State of Karnataka there was originally one post of Chief 
Secretary to the Government. An ex-cadre post of Additional Chief 
Secretary was created with a declaration under Rule 9(1) of !AS (Pay) 
Rules that the status and responsibilities of the said post were equivalent 
to the cadre post of Chief Secretary, and this post was thereafter en-
G cadred by Notification dated January 30, 1987 with the same pay as of the 
post of Chief Secretary. The post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was 
created by the State Government of Karnataka in 1989 with the designa· 
tion Chairman, Hyderabad, Karnataka Development Board by order 
dated September 27, 1989, and was declared equivalent to the status and 
H responsibilities to the cadre post of Additional Chief Secretary under Rule 
368 
SANKARANARAYANAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
369 
9 of IAS (Pay) Rules. The posts of Chief Secretary, Secretary, High Power A 
Committee and Additional Chief Secretary thus carried equal pay. 
On January 3, 1991, the Cabinet Government of Karnataka took a 
decision to the effect that a change of the Chief Secretary should be 
effected, and pursuant thereto, the Chief Minister on January 4, 1991 took 
the follo,,ing three decisions, and passed consequential orders viz; (I) B 
declaring that the post of Secretary, High Power Committee, was 
equivalent in status and responsibilities to the post of Chief Secretary to 
the Government, (ii) transferring the appellant, to the post of Secretary, 
High Power Committee with immediate effect, and (iii) appointing the 4th 
respondent, who was senior to the appellant to the post of Chief Secretary C 
to the Government. The Notification giving effect to the above orders of 
transfer was issued on January 4, 1991 but the authenticated Government 
order declaring the equivalent of the two posts under Rule 9 of IAS (Pay) 
Rules, was issued on the next day, viz; January 5, 1991. 
The appellant made an application before the Central Adminlstra- D 
tive Tribunal, Bangalore for quashing the order dated January 4, 1991 
transferring and posting him as Secretary, High Power _Committee for 
Development of Hyderabad, Karnataka area, Bangalore, and for a direc-
tion to allow him to continue as the Chief Secretary. The order was 
challenged mainly on two grounds : (1) that such order was not passed E 
bona fide for the exigencies of the administration but the same was passed· 
ma/a fide by the Chief Minister of Karnataka who became displeased with 
the appellant on account of his unfavourable attitude and resistance to 
some of the proposals of the Chief Minister in the matter of posting of 
senior officers of the State to different posts, and (2) that the transfer 
order was vitiated because of non-compliance of the profedural for-
F 
malities for a valid transfer of the appellant as there was no declaration 
under Rule 9(1) of 1AS (Pay) Rules, 1954 that the post of Secretary, High 
Power Committee was equivalent to the post of Chief Secretary. 
The respondents viz; State of Karnataka, the Chief Minister as also 
respondent No. 4 denied the allegations relating to the malice of facts and G 
contended that they were mischievous, malicious, scandalous and 
vexatious and such allegations were deliberately made to malign the 
respondents, and contended that the post of Secretary, High Power Com-
mittee, was equivalent to the post of Additional Chief Secretary and such 
declaration had been made long back, and the post of Additional Chief

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.