Raju Kureel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

In this appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, tenability of an order dated 21.10.2013 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 16624/2013 has been called into question.

By a notification issued on 8.10.2012, Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Vidisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Mahakaushal Kshetriya Gramin Bank have been merged together and the transferee Regional Rural Bank has been conferred with the power to post the employees in the interest of the Bank and the public as a whole anywhere within the area of operation of the Regional Rural Bank. A policy in this regard is made by the General Manager of the Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank on 22.8.2013 and in clause 3 of this communication which is fled by the appellant as Annexure P/2, it is indicated that for the purpose of effective working of the Banks after its merger and in accordance to the requirement of the staff, the interest of public and other administrative consideration, posting of the employees may be done.

Based on the aforesaid Circular dated 22.8.2013 an order has been passed on 2.9.2013 whereby the petitioners have been transferred to various branches in Porsa District Morena, Branch Vijaypur District Sheopur and main Branch at Bhind. Challenging the transfer on the ground that the transfer is effected by Regional Manager and the Regional Manager is not competent to transfer, it is only the General Manager who can transfer the employees, the writ petition was fled.

Even though, learned Writ Court found that power of transfer was vested with General Manager but taking note of the communication dated 22.8.2013 vide Annexure P/2 for effecting reshuffling and rationalization of employees, the learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the transfer has been made after grant of approval by the competent authority and therefore, no interference should be made.

Shri Munish Saini submitted that learned Writ Court applied the general circular dated 22.8.2013 to mean a power of delegation given by the General Manager to Regional Managers to transfer the employees. He invites our attention to Annexure P/2 dated 22.8.2013 to say that it is only a general Circular indicating various steps to be taken after merger of different Banks by Notification dated 8.10.2012. It merely gives a general indication that for the interest of public and effective administration of the Bank, employees can be transferred from one region to another by way of rationalization. It is a case of Shri Munish Saini that this does not mean that the Regional Manager is delegated the power of transfer. Transfer of individual has to be effected after due approval and concurrence of the General Manager or at the instance of General Manager and without referring to the individual case of transfer to the General Manager exercising powers of General Manager is not proper. It is said the Circular is misconstrued to mean as a delegation of power to the Regional Manager to effect transfer, learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition which is not proper.

Shri A.C. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents refuted the aforesaid and invites our attention to the averments in the return and argued that the General Manager in the Head Quarter issued the Circular dated 22.8.2013 which was communicated to each and every Regional Manager and Regional Managers exercised their powers delegated by the General Manager and as the act is undertaken on the delegation of power of General Manager, there is no illegality in the matter warranting consideration.

We have considered the rival contentions and we find that the only question warranting consideration by us is as to whether the transfer effected in the manner done in this case can be approved or not ?

The learned Writ Court based on the averments that came has recorded a positive finding in its order that even though there is no ban on transfer of scale 1 officers from one region to another, however, the power is vested with General Manager, HRD to effect transfer but in the case in hand by referring to the Circular dated 22.8.2013 Annexure P/2 it is held that the General Manager by this general circular has permitted inter region transfer to be effected by the Regional Manager. This finding of the learned Writ Court seems to be not correct. If the Circular Annexure P/2 dated 22.8.2013 is taken note of, it is a Circular issued by the General Manager and is addressed to all branches and all offices. The subject is "action to be taken after merger of the Banks as per policy dated 8.10.2012 and rationalization and posting of officers". He has referred to clause 8 of the merger policy dated 8.10.2012 and he says that after merger of the three Banks the transferee Regional Rural Bank shall have power to post the employees in the interest of Bank and public anywhere in the entire area of operation of the transferee Regional Rural Bank and thereafter, he says that in pursuance to this Notification as per the guidelines the management has got the right to transfer employees within their jurisdiction from one place to another. If this Circular as a whole is read, it seems to be a general circular issued indicating to various branches and offices, the action to be taken for rationalization and posting of officers after the merger scheme of 8.10.2012 was brought into force. If in pursuance to this policy employees were to be transferred the proposal for transfer of the employees, their places of posting and various other aspects pertaining to transfer of an employee has to be placed before the General Manager and it is only after approval of the General Manager that such a transfer could be effected. Once the power for transfer was vested in the General Manager, the actual exercise of transfer and posting of an employee from one place to another cannot be done by any officer subordinate to General Manager. This could be done only after General Manager expressly gives power to any particular officer to effect the transfer of the employees under his region. Scheme Annexure P/2 is a general Circular indicating various action to be taken after merger policy. Even if this Circular contemplates a provision for rationalization and posting of employees working in various Regional Rural Banks but before the transferee Bank could effect the transfer, the proposal of transfer should have been placed before the General Manager and it is only after approval of General Manager that each and every case of transfer and posting should have been effected. General power contained in Annexure P/2 dated 22.8.2013 could not be utilized for the purpose of effecting a transfer of a individual employee when this circular is a general circular which only empowers and lays down certain procedure to be followed for rationalization of the staff after the merger has been effected.

Accordingly, we find that the transfer in question has been effected by the Regional Manager without due approval and concurrence of the General Manager and the Circular dated 22.8.2013 is only a general Circular laying down certain scheme for rationalization after the merger of Banks were effected by notification dated 8.10.2012 and same cannot be utilized for the purpose of effecting transfer of employees from one region to another as Effecting of transfer of an employee from one region to another involves taking of decision including suitability of an employee, following of the transfer policy and various other matters and including the place of posting if all these considerations were not placed before the General Manager before effecting an individual case of transfer, we are of the considered view that the power exercised by subordinate officer was not proper. That apart, general circular dated 22.8.2013 is not a delegation of power of transfer to the Regional Manager for inter region transfer. It only contemplates as indicated herein above a rationalization policy and steps that could be taken for reorganization of the transferee Bank for staffing pattern on public interest and administration.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Order impugned is quashed. Transfer order is also quashed and the matter is remanded back to the General Manager to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands allowed and disposed of.