Niraj Kumar Alias Kumar Neeraj vs State Bank Of India & Ors.

“1.

NO INFRINGEMENT OF STATUTORY RIGHTS: That the present Writ Petition is completely misconceived, frivolous, and an abuse of the process of law. The Petitioner has failed to establish any violation of his legal, statutory, or fundamental rights, and is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.

TRANSFER IS AN INCIDENT OF SERVICE: It is settled proposition of law that transfer is a condition of service and an administrative prerogative of the employer Bank. Even a bare perusal of the policy Annexure P-7 would show that relying upon the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter of S.K. Naushad Rahman and others Vs. Union of India, it has been clearly provided therein that under the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules (SBIOSR) and the applicable Transfer Policy, the Respondent Bank is well within its rights to post or transfer any officer at any time in accordance with business exigencies and administrative requirements. Rule 47 of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rule specifically provides that Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place or deputation to any other organisation, in India. An employee has no vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice and as such the prayer of the petitioner as raised in epresentation Annexure P-5 that he be posted in tricity i.e. Panchkula, L.H.O., Chandigarh or Mohali is not tenable.

3.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUITABILITY & RISK PROFILE: That the transfer order dated 16.05.2026 was passed purely on administrative grounds after assessing the Petitioner's suitability, past performance, and operational profile. The allegations of "mala fides" or victimization leveled against Respondents No. 2 to 4 are false, baseless, and vehemently denied. The petitioner has been transferred from CAPC, AO Shimla to LBO, Doda under the Transfer order dated 16.05.2026 containing the transfers of 286 officers. On 18.05.2026, the petitioner was relieved by CM (HR), AO Shimla vide letter No.: AO/HR/202 dated 18.05.2026 for reporting at LBO, Doda immediately. The letter ontained that the subsequent salary of the official will be processed by the transferee office. Photocopy of the relieving order dated 18.05.2026 is annexed as Annexure R-1.

4.

CREDIT APPRAISAL & INDEPENDENT DECISION OF RCCC: That the Petitioner's attempt to link his transfer to the loan proposal under the Kisan Samriddhi Rin (KSR) scheme is misplaced. The final sanctioning decision rested with the Regional Corporate Credit Committee (RCCC)--a high-level committee comprising 4 General Managers and is subject to Credit Review Department (CRD) assessment. The Petitioner, as CM (CAPC), was only required to place factual appraisals before the committee, which uses its independent mind to take a credit decision. Intentionally causing procedural delays by an officer, at any stage, exposes the Bank to reputational risk.

5.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPLANATIONS vs. DISCIPLINARY ACTION: That calling for explanations regarding work pendency, delay, or procedural lapses is a bona fide administrative right of controlling officers. Scrutiny of explanations revealed that the Petitioner exhibits a casual approach, causes avoidable delays, and requires constant follow-up. Notably, no formal disciplinary action has been initiated against the Petitioner.

6.

UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE & SALARY WITHHOLDING: That as per the SBIOSR, the Respondent Bank is fully entitled to withhold salary or treat an officer on unauthorized absence if the officer fails or refuses to report at the designated place of posting upon non-grant or overstay of leave. The Petitioner was granted medical leave initially, but has continuously failed to report at his place of posting in Doda even after expiry of sanctioned leave. Once the Petitioner reports for duty at the allocated station, a fresh decision regarding subsequent leave requests can be considered.

7.

AVAILABILITY OF INTERNAL REMEDIES: That all representations and internal grievances raised by the Petitioner were promptly and properly responded to on record. If the Petitioner alleged any undue pressure, internal mechanisms such as the Whistle Blower Policy were available. Retaining selective audio recordings instead of escalating through established internal channels indicates an intent to use them as a tool against routine administrative actions.”