G. KRISHNA ACHARYA S/O G. LAKSHMINARAYAN ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF COOPERATION, THE DY. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THE TEACHERS CO-OP. BANK LTD. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SHRI PRABHAKAR RAO AND TEACHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER a Senior Manager in the Respondent Cooperative Bank, served the organization for more than 35 years, on the verge of retirement on attaining the age of superannuation in June of 2011, was issued with an order dated 8.5.2010 of transfer from the Head Office at Udupi to the Puttur branch as a Branch Manager. That order was called in question by raising a dispute under Section 17 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act before the Dispute Registrar of Cooperative Societies (for short D.R.C.S.), registered as Dispute No. 2/10, was stayed by interim order dated 17.5.2010. The application filed by the Respondent Bank for vacating the interim order when rejected by order dated 19.6.2010 was carried in Revision Petition No. 62/10 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short the KAT), whence by order dated 17.9.2010 the revision was allowed and the interim order, dissolved. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) PETITION is opposed by filing statement of objections dated 2.11.2010 interalia contending that the order of transfer Annexure 'A' is in respect of the Petitioner amongst other employees of similar rank. It is contended that Government guidelines issued in the matter of transfer are not strictly applicable to the Bank and that Petitioner is transferred since he was working at the head office since ten years while the minimum period of work at a place for 'A' category officers is three years. In addition, it is contended that the KAT was justified in recording a finding that if the matter is pending before the D.R.C.S. for about a year's time then the transfer order would become meaningless. In addition it is contended that Rule 10 of the Service Rules of the Respondent Bank states that if an officer does not accept the transfer order, being short of disobeying the transfer order is insubordination and not following the reasonable orders of the management amounts to misconduct and if an employee is aggrieved by an order of transfer is required to file a representation to the management expressing his grievance with a request to reconsider the transfer order and the failure to submit a representation amounts to accepting the transfer order. The Petitioner having directly approached the D.R.C.S. in a dispute, obtained an interim order, in a matter which is in the discretion of the management and therefore the KAT was justified in dissolving the interim order. Lastly, it is contended that the Petitioner has not obeyed the order of transfer by reporting at the place of transfer i.e., Puttur.

(3.) THE Petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 2.11.2010 stating that the President of the Bank by name Sri Dinakar Shetty and the General Manager by name Sri B Divakar Shetty declined to accept the certified copy of the interim order alongwith the representation to report to duty on the premise that the High Court is required to directly communicate tO them and not through the Petitioner, act borders around contempt and hence action be initiated against them. Learned Counsel has also filed a memo enclosing the details of the posts and payscale, more appropriately of the Senior Manager and Branch Manager in the Respondent Bank.