RAJ G Vs. SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in his office proceedings No. ZOCH/PD/OS/154831/STO 232/2003, dated May 6, 2003, and to quash the same. Heard Mr. R.N. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Karthick, learned counsel for T. S. Gopalan & Co., appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The writ petitioner challenges the order of transfer passed by the third respondent transferring him from Chennai Nandanam Branch/Office to Nagarasampatti, by the impugned communication dated May 6, 2003. The petitioner has referred to the earlier order of dismissal from service for certain charges and his filing W.P. No. 17225 of 1991 in which this Court set aside the order of dismissal. During the year 1996, the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager in Civil Lines at Moradabad Branch between December 30, 1996, to August 26, 2001. From Moradabad, the petitioner was transferred to Nandanam branch where he joined during August, 2001. The petitioner also filed W.P. No. 14720 of 2003 which is pending wherein he has challenged the punishment of reduction in pay. The petitioner had to file W. P. No. 45137 of 2002 while he was serving at Moradabad to consider his request for transfer.

(3.) It is alleged that with vindictive attitude and in order to harass, with mala fide intention the order of transfer dated May 6, 2003, was served on May 10, 2003. It is contended that the said order of transfer has been passed with ulterior motive. The various other allegations have been set out with which we are not concerned. On May 10, 2003, the petitioner submitted a representation. By the order impugned the petitioner was transferred to Nagarasampatti in Dharmapuri District. Such an order of transfer has been passed with vindictive attitude and as a result of the earlier Order in W.M.P. No. 18395 of 2003 in W.P. No. 14720 of 2003. It is also contended that the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides and it has been passed without any authority. It is further contended that as a counter blast to the order passed by this Court in W.M.P. No. 18395 of 2003, the order of transfer has been imposed as a punishment.