A K CHAKRABORTY Vs. NEW BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Sri A. K. Chakraborty is a Scale-III officer in New Bank of India which is described as a public corporation. He was initially appointed to the post of Manager of the said Bank as a Scale-II officer in June, 1977. He was promoted to the Middle Management Scale-III post in August, 1984. During his service career all these years he was posted at various places in different capacities, such as, at Calcutta, Patna, Ranchi, Dhanbad, Delhi. He was Deputy Regional Manager of West Bengal in the Regional office in Calcutta from April, 1985 to October, 1988 and thereafter upto May 1989 he was deputed as Deputy Regional Manager, Bihar/ Orissa. In May, 1989 he was transferred from the Regional office, Calcutta to New Delhi where he worked upto October, 1990. Thereafter he was again transferred from New Delhi to Calcutta in October, 1990 and he worked as a Senior Manager, of Burra Bazar Branch, Calcutta upto August, 1991. In this spell however he only worked for about 10 months in Calcutta before he was transferred to Patna as Deputy Chief in the Patna Regional Office. Annexure-A to the writ petition is his transfer order dated the 90t August, 1991 by which he was transferred from Calcutta to Patna as Deputy Chief. Pursuant to that order the petitioner joined the Patna office on 29th August, 1991.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of his great inconvenience and family problems arising out of the illness of his chronic heart patient wife he joined the Patna office leaving behind his family at Calcutta. After he joined the Patna office the petitioner, on 3rd September, 1991, received a communication dated the 23rd August, 1991 addressed to him by the Assistant General Manager (P), New Bank of India which is the Annexure-B to the writ petition whereby he was informed that his transfer to the Regional Office, Patna as Deputy Chief had been made in view of his unsatisfactory performance because of which his discretionary power had already been suspended. He was further informed by that communication that copy of the same was being placed in his personal file. It is the contention of the petitioner that on receiving the said letter dated the 23rd August, 1991 he came to know that his transfer from Calcutta to Patna had been made not for any administrative reason or service exigency but as a punitive measure because of alleged unsatisfactory performance on his part. He then made several representations to the Authorities concerned and also prayed for re-transfer to Calcutta in view of inconvenience he had been facing for his premature transfer from Calcutta to Patna. All his representations having proved abortive the petitioner ultimately filed this writ petition for appropriate reliefs. It may be mentioned here that in reply to the petitioner's first two representations after transfer dated the 7th September, 1991 and the 25th September, 1991 which are Annexure-C and D respectively to the writ petition the petitioner was informed by the Assistant General Manager (P) by letter dated 11th October, 1991 which is Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-reply that during the petitioner's tenure at the Branch Office, Burra Bazar, Calcutta he had allowed certain unauthorised accommodation to certain parties during credit restraint for which his discretionary powers were also suspended by the Regional Manager (RO, Calcutta) and that as the petitioner had allowed unauthorised accommodation during credit restraint imposed by Head Office/Reserve Bank of India his said action was viewed with serious concern at Head Office.

(3.) It appears that the Regional Manager, RO, Calcutta issued BB/354/91 dated the 28th June, 1991 to the petitioner while he was Senior Manager, Burra Bazar Branch, Calcutta requiring him to explain by the 6th of July, 1991 as to why he made certain unauthorised accommodations mentioned therein during the period of credit restraints imposed by the Head Office as well as against the norms of the Head Office/RBI. In the said letter it was also mentioned that in the meantime the petitioner's discretionary powers had been suspended with immediate effect for the purpose of granting any sort of credit facility to the customers i.e., both fund based and non-fund based. Obviously, the instances of unauthorised accommodations contained therein related to the period during which the petitioner was working as Senior Manager in the Burra Bazar Branch after he was transferred to Calcutta from Delhi in October, 1990. The petitioner gave reply to the said letter by his letter dated the 5th July, 1991 explaining the matter. Reading the said letter of the Regional Manager dated the 28th June, 1991 along with the letter of the Assistant General Manager (P) dated the 23rd August, 1991 referred to earlier it is pronouncedly manifest that the petitioner was transferred to Patna as Deputy Chief from the Burra Bazar Branch, Calcutta in view of his 'unsatisfactory performance' as indicated in the said letter of the Regional Manager dated the 28th June, 1991 and it was because of the instances mentioned therein the petitioner's discretionary power had been suspended with immediate effect as communicated by the said letter dated the 28th June, 1991. The explanation submitted by the petitioner in respect of the matter was however considered by the Assistant General Manager (P) /Disciplinary Authority and it was communicated to the petitioner by the said Assistant General Manager (P) by his letter dated the 9th October, 1992 which is Annexure-X to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner that the matter was placed before and considered by the said Assistant General Manager (P) as Disciplinary Authority and after considering the matter the said Authority advised Sri Chakraborty 'to be careful in future.'