Subsequent Ratification By Police Establishment Board Can Cure Prior Procedural Defect In Police Transfer Order: Karnataka High Court

Background Facts

The petitioner was working as a Police Inspector at Pulakeshinagar Police Station. The respondent was working as a Inspector of Police, Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Bengaluru, and was also holding an additional charge at Byadarahalli Police Station. The respondent was transferred from CID, Bengaluru and posted as Police Inspector, Byadarahalli Police Station. Under the same order, the petitioner was transferred and posted to Legislative House Security, Bengaluru.

The respondent was relieved from CID, Bengaluru on 11.05.2026 and he reported at Byadarahalli Police Station at 2 p.m. on the same day. He made an entry in the Station House Diary and communicated his reporting to the concerned authorities. On 14.05.2026, a subsequent transfer order was issued whereby respondent was transferred from Byadarahalli Police Station to Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station and the petitioner was posted to Byadarahalli Police Station.

The petitioner was relieved from Pulakeshinagar Police station on 14.05.2026 and on the same day, he reported at Byadarahalli Police Station at about 9.45 p.m. Aggrieved by the same, respondent approached the Tribunal contending that the subsequent transfer was contrary to Sections 20B and 20F of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Further, that the Police Establishment Board had not taken any decision permitting such transfer. The Tribunal allowed the application and quashed the subsequent transfer order.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.

It was argued by the petitioner that the modification made by the order dated 14.05.2026 was placed before the Police Establishment Board subsequently on 08.06.2026. It was approved by the Board. It was further argued that there is no statutory bar against such approval.

It was further submitted that once the Board has subsequently considered the matter and consciously accorded its approval, the procedural irregularity stands cured. It was further submitted that the respondent reported at Byadarahalli on 11.05.2026 but it does not mean that he acquired an indefeasible right to continue at that place for a period of one year.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that he had been transferred to Byadarahalli Police Station pursuant to the transfer order dated 10.05.2026 and had reported for duty there. It was contended that the subsequent order dated 14.05.2026 was a premature transfer. It was submitted that the transfer order dated 10.05.2026 had been issued pursuant to the decision of the Police Establishment Board. Therefore, any subsequent modification of the order should also have been placed before the Police Establishment Board.

Findings and Observations of the Court:

It was observed by the Division Bench that Section 20B of the Act provides for establishment of the Police Establishment Board and entrusts it with the power to decide on the transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

It was further observed that Section 20F of the Act prescribes a minimum tenure of one year for the officers posted to operational duties. However, the provision also contemplates transfer before expiry of the minimum tenure in the circumstances specified therein.

It was held that merely because the respondent reported at Byadarahalli on 11.05.2026, it cannot be said that he acquired an indefeasible right to continue at that place for a period of one year. It was further observed that the approval of the Police Establishment Board was obtained subsequently and there is no statutory bar against such approval.

The case of National Institute Of Technology and Another vs Pannalal Choudhury and Another was relied upon wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that the expression 'ratification' means 'the making valid of an act already done'. The Court also relied upon the case of State Of Haryana And Others vs Kashmir Singh And Another wherein it was held that matters with respect to transfer and posting of police personnel are ordinarily to be left to the discretion of the competent authorities.

It was held by the Division Bench that the absence of prior approval can be regarded as a curable procedural defect and would not render the transfer order void. The principle that an act can be subsequently ratified by the competent authority was recognized. It was held that the Police Establishment Board is the Authority competent to decide the transfer and posting of police inspectors, and the subsequent approval is not an approval by an authority which had no jurisdiction over the matter.

With the aforesaid observations, the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal was set aside by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Govindaraju B vs. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No. : WP No. 22235 of 2026 (S-KSAT)

Counsel for the Petitioner : Vinayaka S Pandit, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate For Akki Manjunatha Gowda, Advocate; Reuben Jacob, AAG For N. Byre Gowda, AGA