LAWS(ORI)-2004-4-27

PRAMOD KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 05, 2004
PRAMOD KUMAR MOHANTY Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer dated July 18, 2003, whereby he has been transferred from Bhubaneswar to Salepur ADB, alleging that the same is arbitrary and mala fide. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed in total violation of the specific direction issued by this Court by order dated March 27, 2002 to the effect that Rule 47 of the SBI Officers' Service Rules and the transfer policy of the Bank should be applied to all the officers including the office bearers of the Association uniformly and there should be no discrimination.

(2.) This is the second round of approach of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier, he filed O.J.C. No. 7862 of 2001 when he was transferred from Bhubaneswar to Nayagarh. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed with certain observations. Thereafter, without relieving the petitioner to enable him to join at Nayagarh, his services were placed at the Bhubaneswar Zonal Office where he was not assigned any work. All on a sudden, he received the impugned order transferring him to Salepur, which, according to the petitioner, is illegal and in violation of the provisions of Rule 47 of the SBI Officers' Service Rules. The specific plea of the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from the vices of being discriminatory and mala fide.

(3.) Opposite parties 2 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have stated that the impugned order of transfer is a routine one. The petitioner had worked at Bhubaneswar right from 1996. In 2001, when he was transferred to Nayagarh, he filed a writ petition being O.J.C. No. 7862 of 2001. It is only after dismissal for the said writ petition that the petitioner has been transferred to Salepur. It has also been stated that for the most of his career, the petitioner has worked in Bhubaneswar anditsperiphery. Theseopposite parties have stoutly denied the allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination and mala fide in the impugned order of transfer.