J P SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Delhi to Jaipur. The said order is challenged on the ground that the said order is issued in violation of the transfer policy of the respondent and that the said order is malafide.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the various averments made in the writ petition particularly, to paragraphs XIV, XV and XVI of the writ petition in support of his contention that the impugned order was issued in violation of the transfer policy of the respondent bank and that the same is malafide. In order to prove malafide definite and specific pleadings pleadings are to be given in the writ petition to show how the order is malafide. Contents of the aforesaid paragraphs are vague and do not make out any case of malafide action on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the only question that is to be examined in this case is whether the impugned order of transfer is in violation of the provisions of the transfer policy of the respondent bank.

(3.) It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner is mentally retarded and that he had suffered an attack of psychosis in 1997. By relying on the provisions of the transfer policy circulated on 3/3/1983 he submitted that in view of the aforesaid position the case of the petitioner comes within the purview of paragraph 3.5 of the said transfer policy. It was submitted by him that since the aforesaid order of transfer was made by ignoring Clause-C of said para 3.5, the impugned transfer order is illegal and is liable to be set aside.