JAYANTA SAHA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a bank officer is aggrieved by Annexure-B and Annexure-I orders dated 30.08.2011 and 03.10.2011 respectively. By the first order, he was transferred from Panerihat Branch to Tinsukia Town Branch and by the second order his representation for cancellation of the transfer order was rejected. Be it stated here that such rejection was pursuant to the order of this Court dated 23.09.2011 passed in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4944/2011 which the petitioner had earlier filed assailing the impugned transfer order. For a ready reference the order dated 23.09.2011 is quoted below:

(2.) FROM the above, what is seen is that the only direction issued was to consider the representation made by the petitioner against the order of transfer dated 30.08.2011 and it was clearly indicated in the order about the limited scope of interference in the matter of transfer exercising the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THUS, according to the petitioner, he has been transferred to Tinsukia on the basis of false allegations made against him and the impugned transfer being founded on such false allegations, same is punitive in nature and accordingly, required to be interfered with.