AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a)That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) may be quashed qua the petitioner and private respondent by taking into consideration petitioner's 01 year and 09 months stay at Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Brach Obri, Distt. Chamba, H.P., in the interest of law and justice; b) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at present place of posting and complete his normal tenure i.e. 03-05 years at the present place of posting in view of the provisions of transfer policy dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of law and justice.” _________ ?
Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who was serving at Obri, District Chamba with the respondent-Bank as MMG-III, was transferred to Nithar, District Mandi, vide Annexure P-4 dated 04.04.2026.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that in terms of Annexure P-1, which is a Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services on the subject ‘Review of Transfer Policy in Regional Rural Banks’, the term of Transfer timelines, as has been specified therein provides that all Officers be transferred after every 3 years and all office assistants/attendants be transferred after every 5 years. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, as the stay of the petitioner at Obri was less than 3 years, the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of the said Circular. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before his transfer to Obri in District Chamba, the petitioner was lastly posted in the Headquarter at Mandi, where he served from 29th March 2023 to 7th June 2024. He submitted that the distance between the said two stations is more than 200 kilometers and his transfer from Obri to Nithar, without permitting him to complete his normal tenure, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the petitioner is one of the best Officers, in the respondent-Bank and when he was posted at the Headquarter in Mandi, he was transferred back to District Chamba on his own request. He submitted that now, as the services of the petitioner are required at Nihri, it is on this ground that he has been transferred to said station. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, since his joining the Bank in the month of July 2018, has been serving in District Chamba only, except for the period when he was posted in the Headquarter. He also submitted that the petitioner approached the Court without availing the alternative remedy, as is available to him. Learned counsel also referred to the Transfer Policy of the respondent-Bank dated 01.04.2025, which was made available for the perusal of the Court. He submitted that in terms of the said transfer policy, no Officer is to be posted on a sensitive seat for more than 3 years. He further submitted that as per this policy, no Officer shall remain posted in a Branch for more than 3 years and after posting for a maximum two tenures in one Region, i.e. for 6 years, an Officer may be transferred to the other Region, relating to maximum and minimum tenure in each administrative layer, and for the purpose of calculating the maximum tenure within a Region, the stay at Administrative Office is to be excluded. On a query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, he informed that the respondent-Bank is divided into following Regions; (a) Kangra Region; (b) Hamirpur Region; (c) Solan Region; and (d) Mandi Region. He stated that Chamba is a part of Kangra Region. Learned counsel also argued that no one has an indefeasible right to serve at a particular station and it is the administrative exigency of the Bank which, inter alia, determines the posting of an Officer. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right of staying at a station for a minimum period of 3 years, as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that, in fact, 3 years is the maximum tenure and there is no impediment that the Bank cannot transfer an employee before such an employee completes 3 years of service. Learned counsel also referred to Clause-E of the Transfer Policy and submitted that in terms of the said Policy, bank reserves the right to utilize the services of an Officer at any point of time in the need of the Bank upon seniority/experience etc. in various areas or on any criteria, as decided by the Bank. Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that as the transfer of the petitioner was on account of the administrative exigency of the Bank, as the services of the petitioner were required to be utilized in a better way at Nithar in District Mandi, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
In rebuttal, Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and submitted that feeling aggrieved by his transfer, though the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition, but he had also simultaneously preferred an appeal, which is evident from Annexure P-7, dated 7.4.2026 and the same was dismissed by Competent Authority on 18.04.2026, which order is also appended with the rejoinder as Annexure P-8.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as the other documents appended therewith, as also the transfer policy which was made available by learned counsel for the Bank for the perusal of the Court.
Before proceeding further, this Court would like to observe that when this case was listed in the Court on 8.4.2026, following order was passed:-
“Issue notice. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Notice be issued to respondent No.4, returnable for 22.05.2026, on taking steps within one week.
List on 22.05.2026. Reply on behalf of the contesting respondents in the meanwhile.
CMP No.6994 of 2026 Notice in above terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the transfer order, Annexure P-4, the petitioner has been transferred from Obri to Nither just after a stay of 1 year and 9 months at Nither. On a query put to the learned counsel, he further informed the Court that before his transfer to Obri in District Chamba, the petitioner was serving at headquarter Mandi.
In the light of the fact that the petitioner has been transferred without permitting him to complete a reasonable period at Obri, District Chamba, till further orders, the operation of transfer order (AnnexureP-4) qua the petitioner and the private respondent is hereby stayed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank informed that the petitioner has been relieved.
Be that as it may, as this Court is staying the operation of the transfer order qua the petitioner and the private respondent, status quo ante, as it existed before the passing of impugned transfer order shall be maintained by the respondent-Bank. Petitioner shall be allowed to continue to serve at Obri, District Chamba and the private respondent be called upon to perform his duties where he was servingbefore the passing of the impugned transfer order.”
Thereafter, a miscellaneous application was filed on behalf of the bank seeking vacation of the stay granted, i.e.
CMP No. 10210 of 2026. When this application was taken up for consideration on 8.05.2026, the Court passed the following order:-
“CMP No. 10210 of 2026 By way of this application, a prayer has been made for the vacation of stay granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of the Court notice dated 09.04.2026 served upon the petitioner by the Regional Manager of the Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, which reads as under:-
“Ref: RO/HPGB/HRD/2025-26/13 DATED: 09-04-2020 Sh. Umesh Kumar Branch Manager Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Branch Office Obri Reg-: Notice for violation of Policy Provision (CSL No. 06/2026) and breach of Administrative Discipline.
It has been brought to the attention of the Management that you have approached the Hon'ble Courtregarding a service matter/grievance without first exhausting the internal Grievance Redressal Mechanism provided by the organization.
•Policy Non-Compliance: According to Circular/CSL No. 06/2026, every employee is mandatorily required to submit their grievances to the Competent Authority within the prescribed timeline before seeking external legal remedy.
•Breach of Procedure: By bypassing the internal mechanism, you have ignored the administrative protocols designed to resolve disputes internally, which is viewed as an act of indiscipline and a violation of the terms of your employment/service rules.
In light of the above, you are hereby directed to Show Cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you for this willful violation of policy.
Approaching a court of law without utilizing the available departmental remedies not only causes unnecessary litigation for the organization but also disregards the standing orders of the Management.
You are required to submit your written explanation to the undersigned within 3 working days from the receipt of this notice.
Failure to submit a response within the stipulated time will lead to the presumption that you have no explanation to offer, and the Management will be at liberty to proceed with appropriate disciplinary action as per the Service Rules & extant policy.”
This Court is of the considered view that the Regional Manager has no business to issue any notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why he has approached the High Court for redressal of his grievance. Maximum, a preliminary objection in this regard could have been taken by the Bank in the reply qua the maintainability of the writ petition. The Regional Manager would have been well advised not to issue any such notice as it amounts to undermining the majesty of the Court.
Therefore, prima facie as this Court is of the view that the act of the Regional Manager amounts to contempt, learned counsel appearing for the Bank is directed to ensure the presence of the said Regional Manager in the Court on the next date of hearing, so that he can explain his conduct to the Court.
List on 12.5.2026. Interim order to continue.”
Thereafter, when the case was listed on 12.05.2026, the following order was passed:-
“In compliance to the last order, Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Regional Manager, Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, RO Chamba, H.P., present in the Court in person. He has tendered his unconditional apology for the issuance of the notice in issue.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed over for the perusal of the Court, a notice received by the petitioner, from the General Manager and in terms thereof, the petitioner has been called upon to submit his comments on the alleged lapses committed by him, which lapse as per the General Manager is his approaching the Court, which has been termed in the tabular as “approaching outside avenues” by bypassing the internal grievance redressal mechanism against the transfer order.
This Court is really shocked with the kind of language used by the General Manager, who has the guts to address the factum of an aggrieved person invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is Constitutional right conferred upon not only on citizens of India but others also, in terms of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as “approaching outside avenues”. In fact, this attitude of the Officer amounts to criminal contempt of Court as is defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in terms whereof, criminal contempt, inter alia, means interference or obstruction in the administration of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that before any further observation is made by the Court, an opportunity be granted to the General Manager to purge himself for his act.
The prayer of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank is acceded to at this stage.
List on 18.05.2026, as prayed for. Regional Manager need not to remain present in the Court, but General Manager shall remain present in the Court in person on the next date to explain his position.
Interim order to continue.”
The matter was subsequently taken up on 18.05.2026 and on the said date, the following order was passed:-
“CWP No.4865 of 2026 & CMP No.6994 of 2026 The petitioner has approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by his transfer order. When the matter was listed on 08.04.2026, this Court passed the following order:-
“Issue notice. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Notice be issued to respondent No.4, returnable for 22.05.2026, on taking steps within one week.
List on 22.05.2026. Reply on behalf of the contesting respondents in the meanwhile.
CMP No.6994 of 2026 Notice in above terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the transfer order, Annexure P-4, the petitioner has been transferred from Obri to Nither just after a stay of 1 year and 9 months at Nither.
On a query put to the learned counsel, he further informed the Court that before his transfer to Obri in District Chamba, the petitioner was serving at headquarter Mandi. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has been transferred without permitting him to complete a reasonable period at Obri, District Chamba, till further orders, the operation of transfer order (AnnexureP-4) qua the petitioner and the private respondent is hereby stayed. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank informed that the petitioner has been relieved.
Be that as it may, as this Court is staying the operation of the transfer order qua the petitioner and the private respondent, status quo ante, as it existed before the passing of impugned transfer order shall be maintained by the respondent-Bank. Petitioner shall be allowed to continue to serve at Obri, District Chamba and the private respondent be called upon to perform his duties where he was serving before the passing of the impugned transfer order.”
Thereafter on 08.05.2026, following order was passed”
“CMP No. 10210 of 2026 By way of this application, a prayer has been made for the vacation of stay granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of the Court notice dated 09.04.2026 served upon the petitioner by the Regional Manager of the Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, which reads as under:-
“Ref: RO/HPGB/HRD/2025-26/13 DATED: 09-04-2020 Sh. Umesh Kumar Branch Manager Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Branch Office Obri Reg-: Notice for violation of Policy Provision (CSL No. 06/2026) and breach of Administrative Discipline.
It has been brought to the attention of the Management that you have approached the Hon'ble Court regarding a service matter/grievance without first exhausting the internal Grievance Redressal Mechanism provided by the organization.
•Policy Non-Compliance: According to Circular/CSL No. 06/2026, every employee is mandatorily required to submit their grievances to the Competent Authority within the prescribed timeline before seeking external legal remedy.
•Breach of Procedure: By bypassing the internal mechanism, you have ignored the administrative protocols designed to resolve disputes internally, which is viewed as an act of indiscipline and a violation of the terms of your employment/service rules.
In light of the above, you are hereby directed to Show Cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you for this willful violation of policy.
Approaching a court of law without utilizing the available departmental remedies not only causes unnecessary litigation for the organization but also disregards the standing orders of the Management.
You are required to submit your written explanation to the undersigned within 3 working days from the receipt of this notice.
Failure to submit a response within the stipulated time will lead to the presumption that you have no explanation to offer, and the Management will be at liberty to proceed with appropriate disciplinary action as per the Service Rules & extant policy.”
This Court is of the considered view that the Regional Manager has no business to issue any notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why he has approached the High Court for redressal of his grievance. Maximum, a preliminary objection in this regard could have been taken by the Bank in the reply qua the maintainability of the writ petition. The Regional Manager would have been well advised not to issue any such notice as it amounts to undermining the majesty of the Court.
Therefore, prima facie as this Court is of the view that the act of the Regional Manager amounts to contempt, learned counsel appearing for the Bank is directed to ensure the presence of the said Regional Manager in the Court on the next date of hearing, so that he can explain his conduct to the Court.
List on 12.5.2026. Interim order to continue.”
Thereafter, on 12.05.2026, following order was passed:-
“In compliance to the last order, Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Regional Manager, Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank, RO Chamba, H.P., present in the Court in person. He has tendered his unconditional apology for the issuance of the notice in issue.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed over for the perusal of the Court, a notice received by the petitioner, from the General Manager and in terms thereof, the petitioner has been called upon to submit his comments on the alleged lapses committed by him, which lapse as per the General Manager is his approaching the Court, which has been termed in the tabular as “approaching outside avenues” by bypassing the internal grievance redressal mechanism against the transfer order.
This Court is really shocked with the kind of language used by the General Manager, who has the guts to address the factum of an aggrieved person invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is Constitutional right conferred upon not only on citizens of India but others also, in terms of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as “approaching outside avenues”. In fact, this attitude of the Officer amounts to criminal contempt of Court as is defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in terms whereof criminal contempt, inter alia, means interference or obstruction in the administration of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that before any further observation is made by the Court, an opportunity be granted to the General Manager to purge himself for his act. The prayer of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank is acceded to at this stage.
List on 18.05.2026, as prayed for. Regional Manager need not to remain present in the Court, but General Manager shall remain present in the Court in person on the next date to explain his position.
Interim order to continue.”
Today, Mr. Karanveer Singh Shekhavat, Regional Manager of the respondent-Bank is present in the Court in person. He has tendered his unconditional apology as to what was contained in the communication addressed by him to the petitioner and submitted that it was on account of a miscommunication within the Legal Cell. He further submitted that he does not undermines the majesty of the Court and he undertakes that such kind of mistake shall not be committed in future.
The Court also stands informed that the Tabular which was issued to the petitioner by the Regional Manager on the instructions of General Manager, stands withdrawn. Taking on record the unqualified and unconditional apology tendered by the General Manager and further taking into account the submission that such mistake shall not be repeated in future, this issue is put to a quietus at this stage.
Now, list the main matter for consideration after three weeks. Rejoinder be filed in the meanwhile.”
The above orders demonstrate one fact that an exception was taken by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner approaching this Court by way of the present petition and, in fact, the Officers of the respondent-Bank not only questioned as to why the petitioner had approached this Court, but they also undermined the majesty of this Court that too, in exercise of the Constitutional powers, which have been conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, though this Court took a lenient view of the matter, as is evident from the orders, which were passed from time to time, as unqualified and unconditional apology was tendered by the Officers to the Court, yet fact of the matter remains that filing of this writ petition before this Court by the petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was construed as ‘seeking external legal remedy’, for which a show cause was issued to the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him.
Coming back to the facts of this case, it is a matter of record that the petitioner, who was serving in the Headquarters at Mandi was transferred vide Annexure P-2, communication dated 07.06.2024 to Branch Office Obri in District Chamba. The impugned order, Annexure P-4, is dated 04.04.2026, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been transferred from Obri, District Chamba to Nither, District Mandi. Thus, it is evident that the impugned transfer order has been passed within two years' of the petitioner having joined at Obri in District Chamba. A perusal of Annexure P-4 demonstrates that in all, 29 Officers were transferred in terms of said order and whereas the petitioner was transferred from Obri to Nithar, one Shri Tarun Kumar was transferred from Dharamshala to Obri.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason as to why the petitioner was transferred from Obri to Nithar is on account of administrative reasons, as the services of the petitioner were required more at Nithar in the backdrop of the kind of work which exists in Nithar Branch is not substantiated by any document on record. That is to say, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that there was any qualitative difference in the work profile of a Manager in Branch Office, Obri as compared to Branch Office, Nithar.
Be that as it may, as per Annexure P-1, which is a communication issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India on the subject ‘Review of Transfer Policy in Regional Rural Banks’, the transfer timeline prescribes 3 years as far as transfer of Officers is concerned. Obviously, this circular has to be read harmoniously with the transfer policy of the respondent-Bank, which was also made available for the perusal of the Court. In terms of this transfer policy dated 01.04.2025, no Officer shall remain posted in a Branch for more than 3 years. This means that the maximum tenure that an Officer can have in a Branch is of 3 years. This particular Clause of the Transfer Policy read harmoniously with the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India, leads this Court to one conclusion that the tenure which an Officer can enjoy at a particular station can be of 3 years. After 3 years, no Officer shall remain posted in a Branch. Before the period of 3 years is complete, if an Officer is being transferred, then some cogent reasons should exist as to why said Officer is being transferred without permitting such an Officer to complete the period of 3 years, for the reason that an employee of the Bank also has to have some certainty with regard to his tenure in a particular place, because if the contention of learned counsel for the Bank that the period mentioned in the policy is a maximum period and this does not prohibit the Bank from transferring an employee before completion of 3 years is accepted, then this will give a tool to the Bank to transfer an employee may be after one day, one week, one month, or one year. This is not acceptable in law. There has to be some certainty attached to the posting of an incumbent at a particular station. Exceptions, of course, are always there but exceptions are relatable to the nature of job, which an incumbent is performing. The job of a Branch Manager of a Bank is not such a job that the Bank have to effect the transfer of a Branch Manager periodically without allowing him/her to complete a reasonable tenure of about 3 years at a station, until and unless there are allegations etc. against the Branch Manager. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the transfer of the petitioner without permitting him to complete a stay of 3 years at Obri is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the Transfer Policy also envisages that an Officer may be transferred to other Region after posting for a maximum two tenures in one Region, i.e. for 6 years is concerned and for the purpose of calculating the maximum tenure within the Region, the stay at administrative office is to be excluded, this Court is of the considered view that this particular Clause is not attracted in the facts of this case. This Court is of the considered view that if there is an incumbent, who is posted in Mandi Region, then for the purposes of attracting the provisions of Clause 5(A)(i) (d), the stay of such an incumbent in the Administrative office has to be excluded. However, this Clause cannot be interpreted to mean that if there is an incumbent, who is serving in some other Region, but for some time he has served in the Administrative Office also, then said period has to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the maximum and minimum tenure in that Region.
Accordingly, in the light of above discussions, the instant writ petition is allowed and the transfer order dated 04.04.2026, Annexure P-4, is quashed. Respondent-Bank is directed to allow the petitioner to serve at the said station till he completes his tenure of three years and thereafter, the Bank shall be at liberty to transfer him to any place, which the respondent-Bank deems fit, wherever the services of the petitioner are required. Though the Court was inclined to impose heavy costs upon the respondent-Bank, but on the persuasive requests of Mr. Kul Bhushan Khazuria, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, the Court is restraining itself from doing so.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.