DEEPAK TANDON Vs. J AND K BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is challenging his transfer from Delhi to Mumbai officeof respondent bank and seeks quashing of transfer order dated 20.10.1999 bywhich this transfer was effected. The transfer is challenged on twin grounds: (a) it ismala tide and (b) it is in contravention of his terms of appointment. The avermentsmade in the petition forming the basis of aforesaid challenge may besummarisedin the first instance. On 16.9.1992, respondent No.1 bank applied to the SecuritiesExchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as the SEBI) for grant of registrationas a Merchant Banker under the provision of SEBI (Merchant Bank) Rules andRegulations. 1992. In 1993 the respondent bank submitted curriculum vitae/bio dataof its various personnel working with the bank to the SEBI for approval of itsMerchant Banking Division. Vide its communication dated 1.11.1994, SEBI informedthe respondent bank, that although the bank was eligible for grant of certificate ofregistration as Category I Merchant. Banker, but subject to the condition that thebank, strengthened its manpower with minimum of two persons having adequatehardcore experience in Merchant Bank activities. By way of the said letter, SEBIfurther directed the bank to make the said recruitment within 30 days and thereafterfurnish particulars of its key personnel in order to obtain the necessary clearance,before taking up any assignment as a Merchant Banker. In 1995, pursuant to thedirections of the SEBI, the respondent bank advertised in the National Dailiesinviting applications for recruitment to the post of 'Chief Manager' MerchantBanking Division for their proposed Delhi/Bombay offices. Apropos the saidadvertisement on 7.4.1995, the petitioner who is a qualified Law Graduate andMBA, with vast experience in activities relating to Merchant Bank, applied for thesaid post at the Delhi office of the respondent bank. The petitioner alongwith oneShri K.A.Salaria were selected. On 7.7.1995, the petitioner was appointed as ChiefManager in the Merchant Banking Division of the respondent bank at Delhi andwas directed to report for duty to the Deputy General Manager, J & K Bank Ltd.Delhi. On 16.8.1996 the petitioner accepted the terms of appointment for Delhi andaccordingly joined as Chief Manager, Merchant Banking Division of the respondentbank at Delhi. Pursuant to his joining the Merchant Banking Department of theDivisional Office of the respondent bank in Delhi, the petitioner has been relentlesslyand arduously handling various merchant banking activities for the respondent bankwhich among others included several public issue, project appraisal, RBI and SEBIinspection for the years 1995 to 1998 accounting and reconciliation work, postpublic work with regard to various Stock Exchange etc. However as Mr.K.A.Salariawho was selected for Mumbai office did not join the respondent bank, MerchantBanking Division (MBD for short) at Mumbai was never incepted.

(2.) While the petitioner was working in MBD of Delhi office, he was served withorder dated 1.4.1999 transferring him to Central Office of the respondent bank atSrinagar. It was transfer to non-MBD of the bank. Petitioner filed CW No-2578/99challenging this order of transfer on various grounds including on the ground thatpetitioner could not be transferred to non-MBD and as per terms of appointmentletter, .he could be posted only in Delhi and Mumbai. On 28.4.1999 while issuingshow cause notice in the said petition, this Court granted the stay of the operationof the transfer order dated 1.4.1999. As respondent did, not appear in this case, itwas proceeded ex-parte by order dated 9.8.1999 and the matter was listed forfinal arguments on 25.1.2000. However on 13.10.1999 application was filed byrespondent bank for setting aside ex-parte order dated 9.8.1999 on the plea thattransfer order dated 1.4.1999 had been withdrawn and that petitioner vide orderdated 4.6.1999 had been posted in the Delhi office of the bank in Karol Bagh.Petitioner's case is that he was never served with such order dated 4.6.1999 and hewas surprised to know this fact from the application dated 13.10.1999 filed by therespondent. However within a week from receiving the aforesaid application dated13.10.199, petitioner received another impugned order dated 20.10.1999 postingthe petitioner at area office Mumbai. Petitioner was served with relieving orderdated 8.11.1999 pursuant to theaforesaid order dated 20.10.1999 and he filedCM No. 13765/99 in CW No-2578/99 seeking stay of the operation of implementationof this order. On 7.12.1999, interim order was passed staying this transfer aswell.Thereafter respondent filed reply to this CM and petitioner also filed rejoinder.When the matter was heard again on 17.2.2000, the petitioner withdrew CWNo.2578/99 as it was essentially filed challenging the order dated 1.4.1999 andimpugned order dated 20.10.1999 transferring the petitioner to Mumbai was adifferent cause of action. Permission was granted to the petitioner to file substantivewrit petition separately challenging the order dated 20.10.1999 and interim staygranted earlier staying operation of order dated 20.10.1999 was directed toremain in operation for a period two weeks. The petitioner accordingly filed thepresent petition challenging the impugned transfer order dated 20.10.1999.

(3.) The impugned order is challenged by raising the following contentions: