V R LOHIYA CHAIRMAN vs ASHOK GOSWAMI INTUC

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging

the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by respondent no.2 thereby

transferring the services of the petitioner.

The petitioner was working as Officer Grade-II at

Rampur Branch, District, Chhatarpur of the respondent bank. He

was promoted to the post of Officer Grade-I and transferred to

Chandera Branch in Tikamgarh under the Regional Office

Tikamgarh. In compliance of the said transfer order, the petitioner

joined at Chandera Branch on 2nd June, 2017. As per the date of

birth of the petitioner, the petitioner will retire on 31.12.2018. The

respondents, thereafter passed an order dated 20.09.2017 thereby

transferring the services of the petitioner from Tikamgarh Region

to Sidhi Region. The said transfer order has been challenged by the

petitioner on the ground that it is violative of transfer policy dated

01.09.2016. He submits that as per the Clause 13(4) an officer is

required to remain in a particular place ordinarily for a period of

three years. Clause 13(11) further states that an officer is required

to remain in one zone for a period of six years. Furthermore,

Clause 13(6) says that any officer who is going to retire within a

period of three years normally be adjusted in his home district,

which is Chhatarpur in case of the petitioner. In view of the

aforesaid, he submits that the impugned transfer order is violative

of the said policy.

Respondent Bank has filed their reply and in the reply

they have stated that the petitioner is Scale-II Officer in the

respondent bank. After his promotion in Scale-II cadre he was

transferred as Branch Manager Scale-II Branch at Chandera in

Tikamgarh District on 22.05.2017. The petitioner assumed the

charge of the post of Branch Manager Chandera Branch, it was

found that he was not able to manage the Branch, therefore, the

impugned transfer order has been passed. He further submits that

the service conditions of the officers and employee are governed

by the Regulation known as "Madhyanchal Gramin Bank Officers

and Employees Service Regulation, 2010". It is submitted that as

per Rule 74 of the aforesaid Rules every officer or employee can

be transferred at any point of time looking to the administrative

exigency. In the present case, respondent has stated that the

services of the petitioner have been transferred on administrative

exigency as he was not able to perform his duties as Branch

Manager. The respondents further stated that the petitioner has

already been relieved and in his place Shri Kishore Kumar Gautam

has assumed the charge of post at Chandera Branch on 03.10.2017.

Thus, the post on which the petitioner was working is not vacant.

He further submits that the transfer of an employee is an incident

of service and no employee of public undertaking has legal right

for being posted at any particular place. It is employer alone that

can decide how to manage its employee. He further submits that so

far as Clause 13(4),(6) and (11) of the transfer policies are

concerned. There is nothing in the transfer policy which restrain

the employer to transfer the employee at an early date if his

working is found to be unsatisfactory. It is further submits that the

transfer policy is merely a guideline and it is not required to be

followed strictly particularly in a case when transfer is on

administrative exigency and in public interest. He further relied on

the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007(2)

ILR 1329 .

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner has

filed the present petition challenging the order dated 20.09.2017

(annexure P-1) by which the services of the petitioner have been

transferred from Tikamgarh Region to Sidhi Region. The said

transfer order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the

petitioner has only one year and three months for his retirement.

The respondent Bank has framed the transfer policy and employee

ordinarily or normally should not be transferred before completion

of three years of service. However, Clause 12(e) provides that for

protecting the interest of the Bank can transfer any employee

before completion of normal tenure. In the present case,

respondent Bank in the reply has stated that the work of the

petitioner was not found to be satisfactory at Chandera Branch and,

therefore, on administrative exigency, the services of the petitioner

have been transferred to Sidhi Region. Thus, the transfer order of

the petitioner has been issued in accordance with the transfer

policy framed by the Bank. The Division Bench of this Court in

the case of R.S. Choudhary (supra) has held that the transfer

policy is not enforceable as the employee does not have a right to

remain at a place and the Court have limited jurisdiction to

interfere into the order of transfer in absence of violation of

mandatory statutory rule or the action is capricious and/or

malicious. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to point out

violation of statutory rules or have alleged any malafide against

any of the officers of the bank, therefore, I do not find any reason

to interfere into the said transfer order.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without any

order as to costs.