KIRPAL SINGH Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the transfer order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner has been transferred as Chief Manager of Asset Recovery Management Branch (ARMB) to Regional Office, Berhampur, Orissa, by the respondent Bank. Resultantly, writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought to allow the petitioner to continue with respondent No.4-Branch.

(2.) The challenge is sought, as argued by counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Mutneja, on the grounds of mala fides against respondent No.3-the then Regional Manager, Shri Jaganandan Ganesan and on the ground of violation of Clause 26 of the Transfer Policy for Officers, 2018 (Annexure P-10). As the transfer has been ordered before 3 years, without any reasons to be recorded by the appropriate transferring authority which is to be subject to scrutiny at next higher levels, since it is submitted that the petitioner is a Scale-IV officer. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Punjab and Sind Bank and others Vs. Mrs.Durgesh Kuwar 2020 Labour Law Reporter 355 in this context.

(3.) On the contrary, Mr.Gupta, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank has argued that the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner was of a problem creator right from the period he had joined with the respondent No.4-Branch on 15.07.2019 and had started complaining on the very next day against the then Assistant General Manager. The allegations of mala fides against respondent No.3 are rebutted on the ground that respresentations were being made to the said respondent against the Assistant General Manager, which would be clear from the communication dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure R-3) and the petitioner had, for the first time, met respondent No.3 on 30.07.2019. Reliance is also placed upon the other communications to submit that the petitioner has been representing against all officers of the Branch and Assistant General Managers and the transfer order was being passed on account of administrative reasons as the atmosphere of the Branch had become fouled and therefore, the transfer order was justified, in the facts and circumstances. Pleadings: