VISHNU V.B Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are filed under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court, 1958, by the respective petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.2372, 4495 and 4550 of 2025. They filed those writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging their respective transfer orders. The appellant in W.A. No.192 of 2025 is working as Assistant Manager at the Regional Office of the respondent Bank in Ernakulam. As per the transfer order dtd. 10/1/2025, he was transferred to the Regional Office, Ahmedabad. The appellant in W.A. No.358 of 2025, who is working as Manager I-Line in the Kollengode Branch of the respondent Bank, was transferred to Ludhiana Region in Punjab as per the order dtd. 10/1/2025. The appellant in W.A. No.361 of 2025, who is working as Assistant Manager in Kozhikode main branch was transferred to the Regional Office, Lucknow, as per the order issued on the very same day. As per the impugned judgments dtd. 21/1/2025 in W.P.(C)No.2372 of 2025 and 7/2/2025 in the remaining two writ petitions, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that transfer and posting are the subject matter better left to the discretion of the competent authority, and the Court should loath to interfere in the transfer and posting of the employees. As far as the order of punishment imposed on the appellants in the disciplinary proceedings is concerned, the learned Single Judge directed the 4th respondent therein to decide the appeal filed by the appellant in W.A.No.192 of 2025 expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of that judgment. The appellants in W.A. Nos.358 and 361 of 2025 are granted liberty to file statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent therein within 10 days and the 2nd respondent was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of filing of the appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsels appearing for the appellants argued that against the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them, the appellants filed statutory appeals. The appeal filed by the appellant in W.A. No.192 of 2025 was already rejected by the Appellate Authority. However, the statutory appeals filed by the remaining two appellants are under consideration. It is in the course of disciplinary proceedings the appellants were transferred to distant places as a punishment. In fact, in pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings, punishment of reduction in the scale of pay was imposed on them. Hence, their transfer to distant places is a dual punishment for the same disciplinary action.