G.S.D. MISHRA Vs. MADHYANCHAL GRAMINJ BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent finally heard. Order passed and annexed on a separate sheet. This is second visit of the petitioner against the order dated 04.03.2016 (Annexure P/4). Earlier, petitioner filed W.P.No. 4957/16 which was disposed of by this Court on 15.03.2016 by directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. In turn, respondents decided the representation by order dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure P/13) which is called in question in the present petition.

(2.) Petitioner submits that following reasons are mentioned for transferring the petitioner : -

(3.) Criticizing the said reasons, it is urged by the petitioner that as per clause -6 of the Policy dated 06.12.2012 (Annexure P/3), it is clear that the normal tenure of posting at a branch is two years. If somebody is required to be posted within these two years, approval is required to be taken from the Chairman. Shri Mishra contends that no approval has been taken. Although in the order Annexure P/4 the word âoeattachmentâ is used but for all practical purposes, it is âoetransferâ . It is said that the transfer is wholly impermissible. Shri Mishra also relied on Annexure P/2 and P/5 in support of his contention that after joining at Churhat, as per Annexure P/1 dated 05.01.2016, the petitioner has not taken any leave on personal grounds. He further submits that no meeting of government officials was ever conducted between 05.1.2016 and 04.03.2016, the date of issuance of impugned order. He submits that the reasons mentioned in the rejection order are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. It is submitted that respondents have not filed any document/ complaint of the government officials.