Ramesh Jaradhara vs Assam Gramin Vikash Bank And 2 Ors.

Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.

Also heard Mr. D. Banerjee, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, appearing for the respondents.

The writ petitioner herein is working as the Manager in the Lohitmukh Branch in Lakhimpur Region of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank. Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 12.08.2020, by means of which, he has been transferred from the Lohitmukh Branch and posted at the Hailakandi Branch coming under the Silchar Region with a direction to join on or before 19.08.2020, the instant writ petition has been filed. On the strength of an interim order passed by this Court in the present proceeding, the petitioner has been continuing in his present place of posting at Lohitmukh Branch.

Assailing the impugned order dated 12.08.2020, Mr. Sharma has argued that the petitioner, who was posted at the Udalguri Branch in the Nalbari

Region, was transfer and posted at the Lohitmukh Branch by order dated 03.07.2020. Within a span of about a month’s time the petitioner has

again been transferred from Lohitmukh Branch and sent to Hailakandi Branch, only to impose punitive measures upon him for taking independent stand on certain administrative matters. By referring to the transfer police of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank (Annexure-C) Mr. Sharma has argued that the petitioner is due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.04.2023. He submits that as per the transfer policy of the Bank an officer should be considered for posting in his home region three years prior to superannuation subject to administrative convenience.

However, submits Mr. Sharma, in this case, the Bank has adopted an approach contrary to the transfer policy by sending him to a remote location prior to his retirement. It is also the stand of Mr. Sharma that as per the transfer policy of the Bank, an Officer is to be transferred every three years

but in this case the petitioner has been transferred twice within a span of almost one month, in total violation of the bank’s transfer policy.

Contending that the impugned transfer order is nothing but a punitive measure initiated against the petitioner for adopting a principled stand, Mr.

Sharma has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Responding to the above submission, Mr. D. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, has argued that the impugned transfer order has been issued for administrative necessities and the petitioner having created serious obstruction in functioning of the Branch at Lohitmukh, there was no alternative for the authorities but to issue the transfer order for the interest of better administration of the Branch. By referring to the affidavit filed by the respondents Mr. Banerjee has argued that transfer is an incident of service and since the order of transfer was issued on administrative grounds,

this Court may not interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides and have also perused the materials available on record.

It is the admitted position of fact that by the order dated 03.07.2020 the petitioner was transferred from Udalguri Branch to Lohitmukh Branch under

Lakhimpur Region in which post he had joined immediately. The home region of the petitioner is Lakhimpur Region. However, by the impugned order dated 12.08.2020 the petitioner has been shifted to a remote location i.e. Hailakandi despite the fact that he has less than three years left for his

retirement. There is also no dispute about the fact that as per the transfer policy of the Bank, an Officer, prior to three years of his superannuation,

would be entitled to consideration for posting in his/her home region subject to administrative convenience. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner is due for retirement fronm service upon attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2023. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer dated 12.08.2020 posting the petitioner at Hailakandi appears to be in clear deviation of the transfer policy of the bank concerning employees who are on the verge of retirement.

The reason why the petitioner has been transferred has been spelt out in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in paragraph 4, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

“4. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition the answering deponent begs to state that is not fully correct. The

impugned transfer order was not normally issued but was done for administrative reasons because on 12.08.2020 at about 10:30 a.m., the petitioner was telephonically contacted by the Regional Manager, Lakhimpur Regional Office of the respondent Bank as a part of regular follow up measure regarding development work and day to day functioning. First he was asked about disbursement of loan which was top priority for the Chairman and the respondent Bank. The petitioner was asked about KCC and SHG loans which are flagship programme of the Government of India. The petitioner said that he will not disburse any loan till a Second Officer was posted in the Bank Branch. He refused to go for field visit for recovery of loans and shadow accounts for some time which would not have affected the daily transactions. Thereafter some customers of the Respondent Bank phone and wanted to know whether transaction of the Respondent Bank was stopped. The Office Assistant of the Respondent Branch was telephoned who informed that the petitioner has instructed him not to even receive cash. But after the instructions of Regional Manager, Lakhimpur Regional Office,

the Office Assistant started receiving cash. The above behavior of the petitioner to stop the normal functioning of the Bank Branch is total insubordination and against the interest of Respondent bank and customers and so recommended administrative action against the petitioner. The above matter was reported by Regional Manager of the Respondent Bank on 12.08.2020 by a letter (enclosed as ANNEXURE R-1) to the

Respondent No.3. Immediately thereafter on the same day a Note was prepared and placed before the transfer/Posting committee which is headed by the Chairman of the respondent Bank and the transfer order dated 12-08-2020 (ANNEXURE B of the writ petition) was issued under administrative ground. A copy of the transfer/Posting committee approved note is enclosed and marked as ANNEXURE R-2. A copy of the letter dated 09-09-2020 corroborating the above incident by the Office assistant (M) is also enclosed and marked as ANNEXURE R-3. The transfer order

dated 12-08-2020 transferring the petitioner from Lohitmukh Branch to Hailakandi Branch was necessitated on administrative grounds.”

From a plain reading of the statements made in paragraph 4, it is apparent that the authorities were unhappy with the functioning of the petitioner and

therefore, took the decision to transfer him to Hailakandi. Although it has been mentioned that the decision was taken on administrative ground no further particulars has been furnished by the respondents to substantiate the said point. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the submission of the

petitioner’s counsel that the impugned order of transfer is nothing but a punitive action initiated against the petitioner in a manner which is

impermissible in the eye of law.

Law is no doubt well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and ordinarily the writ court would not interfere with an order of transfer.

However, an order of transfer can be interfered by the writ court if it is found to be contrary to the transfer policy or any other norms of the institution and also if it is established that the order of transfer has been issued for purposes other than bonafide. After going through the materials available on

record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order of transfer is punitive in nature and has been issued with a view to impose penal measures on the petitioner without holding any disciplinary proceeding. Such a recourse, as has been noted above, would be wholly impermissible in the eye of

law. There is also no justification shown as to why the petitioner had to be transferred within a period of one month from the date of his previous

posting. Therefore, this also prima facie appears to be a case of frequent transfer without proper justification and the same is also found to be in conflict with the transfer policy of the bank concerning employees who are due for retirement. Therefore, the transfer order dated 12.08.2020 appears to be the outcome of arbitrary exercise of administrative power.

For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order dated 12.08.2020 is hereby set aside. Notwithstanding this order, it would be open for the respondent authorities to pass a fresh order of transfer posting the petitioner at any suitable location. However, in doing so, the respondents shall keep in mind the policy of the Bank concerning transfer of employees who are on the verge of retirement. If it becomes necessary to transfer the petitioner,

in that event, he may be assigned posting at any other Branch, preferably in the Lakhimpur Region and if no such posting is available, at any other station closest to his home region.

With the above observation the writ petition stands disposed of.