All India Bank Of Baroda Officers' Union & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present petition is filed by the All India Bank of Baroda Officers Union (hereinafter referred to as "Officers Union"), the first petitioner, as well as the employee the second petitioner herein, challenging the order at Annexure-E dated 17.03.2026 by virtue of which second petitioner was transferred and relieved from his present assignment with instructions to report to the Zonal Head, Mangaluru Zone, for further placement in Zone-I. Certain consequential relief was also sought for restoration of petitioner no.2 at his original place of posting at Bengaluru. Though other reliefs are also sought, in essence the primary relief relates to validity of the order of transfer at Annexure-E.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner no.2 is the Joint Secretary of the petitioner Union and asserts that he has been targeted in a malafide manner and the impugned order of transfer is passed. It is submitted that the petitioner while working at Zonal Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (for short "ZOSARB"), Bengaluru, is stated to have detected irregularities and reported the same to the Higher Authorities and which issue was also taken up by the petitioner Union.

The petitioner contends that the Government of India issued guidelines dated 26.11.2024 which provides for the transfer exercise to be conducted on objective criteria such as tenure and seniority while avoiding mid-year transfers.

It is further submitted that the respondent-Bank had framed transfer policy dated 24.04.2025 and in terms of Clause 7.1 (a) the "officer for Inter Zonal Transfer are to be identified on the basis of 'longest stay' and objective parameters". It is submitted that in the present case, no such parameter has been followed.

It is also contended that the impugned order at Annexure-E was in effect a relieving order without any separate order of transfer. It is further contended that the transfer made is outside the regular transfer cycle and has been effected without prior approval of the Chief General Manager.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that he having come across grave and systemic irregularities brought such irregularities to the notice of the Assistant General Manager and instead of addressing such concerns the employer has harassed the petitioner no.2 and in order to victimise him for exposing irregularities, allegations of "Leakage of Bank Information/Data" were maliciously attributed to him and the arbitrary, unreasonable action was taken against him with malafide intent and have victimised him.

The respondent-Bank has contended that transfer was effected due to administrative exigencies, which order had the approval of the Chief General Manager. It is specifically asserted that he was relieved by way of a communication through Email dated 17.03.2026. It is contended that the Bank of Baroda (Officers Service) Regulations 1979, make provision for transfer of employees and Regulation 47 provides for transfer of every officer to any Branch of the Bank at any place in India. It is further submitted that the policy of the Bank is merely for guidance while Regulation 47 would have the overriding effect.

It is also contended that the petitioner no.2 had stayed away from work by seeking leave on health grounds, the bank had advised him to be examined by the Bank's Medical Practitioner at Bengaluru or at Mangaluru. It is contended that the DFS Guidelines are in the nature of Advisory Guidelines.

Heard Sri.Lokesh Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri.Pradeep Sawakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

At the outset, it must be noticed that Regulation 47 provides for transfer of every officer to any office or branch of the Bank to any place. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the directions of the Government as well as the Policies of the Bank provide for certain additional safeguards, nevertheless the regulations framed would have precedence over other policies.

If that were to be so, there has to be full effect given to Regulation 47 which would supersede anything to the contrary on more beneficial to the employee under the Policy or Government directions.

It is also a settled position of law that transfer is an incident of service and even if there are deviations from guidelines or policies, the courts do not readily interfere with exercise of power of transfer unless there is violation of any statutory right or where malafides is made out.

Insofar as power conferred under Regulation 47, the power to transfer is vested with the employer. However, the counsel for the petitioner has made out a case of malafides by contending that the order of transfer at Annexure-E was passed on 17.03.2026 apparently citing requirement of utilising services in Mangalore Zone, which however was passed with oblique motive. It is submitted that communication dated 16.03.2026 has been addressed to the petitioner regarding “misuse of official Email and unauthorised disclosure of confidential information in violation of the extant policy of the Bank”. The said communication details an allegation made regarding the petitioner no.2 and a response to the show-cause notice is sought. The said communication refers to the following:

The petitioner was called upon to make out his reply.

In the context of such show-cause notice the power of transfer has been exercised.

The petitioner has specifically in his writ petition has contended at Para 44 that the power of transfer was exercised with a predetermined mindset to victimise the petitioner for having exposed irregularities. Such assertion of malafides is also found in the pleading at para 47 and 48.

The second petitioner has been sending communications to the bank regarding non-adjustment of NPA recoveries, variation in value, dates of auction proceeds etc. All such communications are found at Annexure-K series.

It is the contention of the petitioner no.2 that it is in the context of such repeated communications of the petitioner no.2 that the show-cause notice dated 16.03.2026 appears to have been given. The contemporaneous issue of transfer order on 17.03.2026 in the light of show-cause notice dated 16.03.2026 cannot be treated to be without any nexus.

The action complained of is sought to be assailed on the ground of malafides where order is passed with an oblique intent.

In the case of Ms. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another^{11.(2022) 14 SCC 187}, it is held as under:

In light of the same, it could be stated that the order of transfer is vitiated by malice in law.

The respondent-Bank has not been able to substantiate that the transfer has no nexus with the show-cause notice dated 16.03.2026. Once an allegation is made supported by the Email of 16.03.2026 which is contemporaneous to the order of transfer, it is the duty of the Bank to have dispelled the allegation of oblique motive.

Though an order of transfer may be apparently premised on administrative exigency where there is an element of malice, the power though appears to be a legitimate exercise of power could still be interfered with when there is malice and malafides.

Accordingly, the court finds that the order of transfer passed on 17.03.2026 i.e., one day after the show-cause notice dated 16.03.2026 is vitiated by malafides and liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the order at Annexure-'E' is set aside and the petition is allowed in part.