SAILENDRA KUMAR SARANGI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The law relating to the transfer of Government Servant has more or less been crystalised in the meantime by various decisions of the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court. The principle enunciated therefrom is that a transfer order made to satisfy the administrative exigencies cannot be questioned as it is entirely for the employer to decide when and where a public servant is to be placed. The Court will not ordinarily interfere with an order of transfer which is made to satisfy the exigencies of service. The Supreme Court in Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, reported in AIR 2000 SC 256 : 1999 (9) SCC 386 held in particular that merely because a Government servant happens to be posted twice at a particular place within a short range of time an inference as to his having been brought to a particular station for a particular purpose cannot be drawn. In another case, Union of India & Ors. v. S.L. Abbas, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 : 1993 (4) SCC 357:1993-II-LLJ-626 it has been held that the guidelines framed for transfer of an employee do not confer a legally enforceable right upon the employee to challenge the order of transfer which has been made to satisfy the administrative exigencies. At the same time it is also the dictum of the Supreme Court that a transfer order which is mala fide and not made in public interest but for collateral purposes, with oblique motives and in colourable exercise of power is vitiated by abuse of power and is open to challenge before the Court being wholly illegal and void. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in AIR 1986 SC 1955 : 1986 (4) SCC 131 : 1986- II-LLJ-516 and of this Court in Ananda Chakraborty v. Union of India, reported in 92 CWN 276 and S. V. Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 91 CWN 1099.

(2.) In this particular case a definite transfer policy was framed at a meeting between the representatives of the Management of the Syndicate Bank and the Representatives of Officers of the said Bank on March 26, 1998. The transfer policy provided inter alia that the officers are liable to be routed once in three years and Branch Managers once in three to five years and they are also liable to be transferred outside the State once in five years. As held by the Supreme Court as above, such guidelines and/or the transfer policy of the respondent/Bank simplicitor do not confer a legally enforceable right upon the writ petitioner to challenge his order of transfer if it is established that the same was made to satisfy the administrative exigencies.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid principles of law relating to the transfer, it is necessary to consider in this writ petition whether the transfer order of the writ petitioner was mala fide and not made in public interest but in colourable exercise of power which would result in declaring the same as illegal and void.