D MOHANKUMAR Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Deputy Manager, Accounts in the Thumba Branch of the State Bank of India is the writ petitioner. He impugns the order transferring him immediately to the Koottar Branch of the bank and directing the Thumba Branch Manager to relieve him with effect from 1-8-2005. One of the grounds on which he challenges the transfer order is that Koottar Branch is situated in the rural area of Idukki District and transferring him from Thiruvananthapuram even before he completes four years of service there, will violate the norms pertaining to transfer. Petitioner states that as per the gradation of the managerial staff of the bank, he belongs to the Grade MM II and as per categorisation of branches, the Koottar Branch is one which is to be managed by a Deputy Manager of Grade MM II. Therefore, he says that the Branch Manager in Koottar branch is an officer of Grade MM II and the petitioner who is being transferred to that branch is also another officer of the same grade. Since the Branch Manager of Koottar branch is of Grade MM II, what actually happens by transferring the petitioner as Deputy Manager (Accounts) to that branch is that he is for all practical purposes degraded to the position of an Accountant or Field Officer coming under Grade JMGI, a grade lower to MM II. According to the petitioner, the order of transfer is actually an order of demotion. He contends that it is highly improper to transfer an officer like him belonging to Grade MM II to the Koottar branch. When he is compelled to work under the Branch Manager who is also of Grade MM II, it is for the Branch Manager to write and compile his confidential report and this situation will violate the rules which exist in the bank as well as all principles of natural justice. The Branch Manager and himself are persons who will have to appear simultaneously for promotion and if the Branch Manager is permitted to write his confidential report, the Branch Manager will gain an undesirable advantage over the petitioner. Ext. P4 order, he alleges, has been issued for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from gaining promotion and for appeasing the office bearers of the . Officers' Association who are opposed to the petitioner. The instruction of the Controlling Authority dated 30-7-2005 which is referred to in Ext. P4 has been passed without hearing the petitioner and the same is illegal.

(2.) It is a detailed counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank at the Thiruvananthapuram Zonal Office. According to the counter affidavit, Ext. P1 produced along with the Writ petition is a general transfer order passed by the bank on 29-4-2005. Ext. P4 which is presently impugned is an order consequential to Ext. P1. The direction of the controlling authority made mention of in Ext. P4 is only a direction to implement Ext. P1 general transfer order. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court impugning Ext. P1 which was dismissed vide Ext. P2 judgment. This Court found that there is no warrant for interfering with Ext. P1. Nevertheless only out of benevolence this Court permitted him to continue at Thumba for about two months more. Petitioner filed a Contempt of Court Case without any basis complaining that Ext. P2 judgment has been violated. This Court dismissed the Contempt of Court Case. Against Ext. P2 judgment, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1563 of 2005 which was also dismissed by this Court. Suppressing all that transpired before the High Court, petitioner approached the Human Rights Commission filing Ext. Rl(a) complaint. The Human Rights Commission also declined to interfere noticing the detailed objection Ext. Rl(b) filed by the bank. The present Writ Petition challenging the very same transfer order is barred on principles of estoppel and res judicata including constructive res judicata. When it was noticed that to evade the acceptance of Ext. P4 relieving order the petitioner was not attending the Thumba Branch, the bank sent the relieving order by registered post in his last known residential address. The same was sent in ordinary post as well as by courier. The registered cover was received back by the Bank with the endorsement "locked, intimation given and absent". The petitioner has not reported in Koottar branch. His action has affected the functioning of that branch very seriously. His conduct is against public interest. In order to contend that the petitioner is evading attendance on medical grounds without reason, the bank relies on Exts. R1(c) to R1(k). The petitioner has been directed to make all future correspondence to Koottar Branch as per Ext. R1(1). The members of the supervisory staff of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules and as per R.47, officers are liable to be transferred and deputed everywhere in India. The impugned transfer order has been passed in accordance with the bank's policy and norms. The challenge against the same was once rejected by this Court. After Ext. P1 order was issued, the Controlling Authority, the Assistant General Manager instructed the Branch Manager as per Ext. R1(m) to give relieving order to the petitioner. It was at that juncture that the petitioner approached this Court and filed the earlier Writ Petition. It was when the time allowed by this Court as per the earlier judgment was over that the Controlling Authority again issued Ext. R1(n) instructions to relieve the petitioner immediately. It is Ext. R1(n) which is referred to in Ext. P4. The statement in Ext. P4 that the petitioner is being posted as Deputy Manager (Accounts) is not correct. He is being posted as Deputy Manager (Advances). The petitioner has already served the Thiruvananthapuram centre for more than four years. It is contended that there is no basis for the contention that the transfer order amount to demotion. The petitioner is posted in MM II Grade itself. The Deputy Manager (Advances) in Koottar branch is of MM II Grade. The argument that two officers of MM II Grade shall not occupy one branch in two designations is without basis. Majority of the officers of the State Bank of India belong to MM II Grade and in most of the branches where they are posted, the Branch Managers will also be of the same grade. There is nothing illegal about this. Such arrangements are made in administrative exigencies for the smooth performance of the bank's activities. It will be clear from Ext. P1 itself that officers in MM II Grade are posted in different posts in branches where the Branch Managers are of MM II Grade. The Writ Petition is an abuse of legal process. The petitioner's confidential report will never be written or compiled by the Branch Manager of Koottar branch. Ext. P4 will not in any way affect the petitioner's promotions in future.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit through which he denies the contentions in the counter affidavit and reiterates his earlier stand. The cause of action for this Writ Petition is not Ext. P1 referred to in Ext. P2 case. Instead, the cause of action is Ext. P3 circular dated 16-8-2005 and Ext. P4 dated 1-8-2005. Therefore, there is no legal bar for this Writ Petition. The circumstance that the petitioner will continue to draw the salary and other privileges of Deputy Manager of Grade MM II is not a consolation for the unhappy situation that the petitioner will have to work as Assistant Manager under another officer of Grade MM II. Along with the reply affidavit, the petitioner has produced Ext. P5(a) list of the branches in Thiruvananthapuram District and as Ext. P5(b), the administrative structure of Koottar branch as well as the Mangalapuram Branch in which the petitioner can be accommodated. He has also produced as Ext. P5(c), a list showing the branches in Idukki District and the grades of Branch Managers of those branches. It is contended that in most of the branches in Idukki District, Deputy Managers of Grade MM II like the petitioner have been given Branch Managership. At Mangalapuram the Chief Managership of that branch is given to an officer of Grade SM IV while the post of Deputy Manager (Accounts) in that branch is manned by a Junior Manager Grade I which is below MM II. It is possible for the management to accommodate the petitioner in a branch at Thiruvananthapuram itself. The bank has done so in the case of many others who were previously working at Thiruvananthapuram itself.