KULDIP SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 29.4.2006 (Annexure-P.6) whereby he has been relieved from the Qadian Branch of State Bank of Patiala (`Bank' for short) and instructed to report at his new place of posting at Budhlada Branch which is 300 Kms. away. It is alleged that the said transfer is against the guidelines issued by the respondent Bank. Besides, it is with a mala fide intention to accommodate one Kirpal Singh from Faridkot Branch as he belongs to Batala which is at a distance of 16 Kms. from Qadian.

(2.) The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist by the respondent-Bank. He was posted in the Inspection Department at Head Office Patiala on 15.10.1991. He was working at Qadian Branch when the impugned order of transfer was passed. Earlier the petitioner was working at Chabhal Branch of the Bank in District Amritsar where he had been transferred and had joined on 19.3.1997. As per guidelines of the respondent-Bank, the Award Staff Employees on completion of one and half years of service at one station can send their request for transfer at a place of their choice. Such requests are registered with the Personnel Administrative Department and are dealt with according to merit and subject to availability of vacancy at the station opted for by an employee. The petitioner submitted a request on 19.9.1998 for considering his case for transfer to Amritsar as he has his own house there. He was informed by the head office vide letter dated 29.9.1998 that his request for transfer to Amritsar has been noted at serial No. 31. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 the Branch Manager of Chabhal Branch where the petitioner was posted was inimical towards him and even otherwise there were complaints against him. In any case, respondent No. 4 is stated to be close to the then Assistant General Manager who was promoted as Deputy General Manager. The Assistant General Manager asked the Branch Manager, Chabhal on 7.8.2000 to relieve the petitioner as the petitioner stood transferred from Chabhal to Qadian. The fact that the petitioner had given option for his posting at Amritsar was ignored. The petitioner had in fact joined at Qadian Branch on 25.11.2004 and thereafter made various requests for posting him back to Chabhal Branch. A meeting of the workmen-Union and the representatives of the Bank was also held on 23.11.2004 and after detailed discussions, it was decided that the transfer would be effected within the district or if the circumstances necessitated the deployment outside the district, the workman could be posted to any branch office of the Bank outside the district upto a distance not exceeding 100 Kms. from the present place of posting. It was also decided that the employees would be repatriated after a period of two to three years. The wife of the petitioner is Principal of a Government School and is posted at Amritsar. The petitioner has two children aged 12 years and 8 years who are studying at Amritsar. Despite these circumstances, the petitioner in terms of the impugned order dated 29.4.2006 has been relieved by the Qadian Branch of the respondent-Bank with instructions to him to report at his new place of posting i.e. Budhlada Branch after availing usual joining time admissible under the rules. The petitioner even though has sufficient balance leave in his leave account but respondent No. 2 with the intention to harass him delayed his salary for the period from August to November 2004 which was paid in March 2005 at the end of the financial year. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner to a place 300 Kms. from his place of posting is assailed. On notice of motion, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 by the Assistant General Manager J-II, Zonal Office, State Bank of Patiala, Jalandhar. Separate written statements have been filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively. In the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, it is stated that a departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner on charges that ever since his posting at Chabhal Branch w.e.f. March 1997, the petitioner was openly defying orders of the Branch Manager and provoking other staff members for disobedience. Besides, after transfer from Chabhal Branch to Qadian Branch, the petitioner remained on leave upto 23.11.2004. During this period, he tried to exert political influence through a Member of Parliament of the area who intervened and exerted pressure to get his transfer cancelled. The Member of Parliament, it is stated, enclosed copies of affidavits of complaints filed by various persons against respondent No. 4, the then Branch Manager of Chabhal Branch of the respondent-Bank which were confidential and part of the record of the respondent-Bank. This according to respondents No. 1 and 2 indicates that the complaints were engineered by the petitioner and the photo copies retained by him were supplied to the Member of Parliament. It is also alleged that in spite of letter dated 13.12.2004 issued by the respondent-Bank a letter through PS to the Chief Minister was received on 2.3.2005 at the Head Office, Patiala for cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner, it is alleged, has been instrumental in generating complaints against the Branch Manager and officials through public which is prejudicial to the growth of the Branch and injurious to the reputation of the Bank. The petitioner nominated one Shri Ashok Kohli, Head Cashier of the respondent-Bank, Batala Road Branch, Amritsar as his working representative to associate him to defend the case in the inquiry pending against him. He duly participated in the inquiry proceedings held on various dates from 15.4.2005 to 1.3.2006. The petitioner produced defence statement and relied upon various documents. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report dated 21.3.2006 by which the four charges attributed to him were held to be proved. The petitioner had been supplied with the copy of the inquiry report (Annexure-R.1). It is stated that the aforesaid charges are prima facie prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and tantamount to gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner in terms of Clause 5(b) and 5 (c) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Proceedings of Workmen signed between Indian Bank Association and Workmen Union on 10.4.2004. However, it is stated that the action would be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the inquiry in due course in accordance with law. It is further stated that the aforesaid departmental inquiry held against the petitioner and reports submitted by the Inquiry Officer have nothing to do with the transfer of the petitioner from Qadian Branch in Amritsar District to Budhlada Branch in Bathinda District. The holding of departmental inquiry regarding misconduct of the petitioner, it is stated, is an action altogether independent of the transfer of the petitioner which was totally based on administrative necessity and also in the administrative interest of the respondent-Bank and also in public interest.

(3.) In the separate written statements filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively, the allegations as made against the respective respondents have been stated to be false and accordingly denied. It is stated by respondent No. 3 that as a matter of fact the petitioner was regularly putting various types of hindrances in the conduct of day to day business affairs at Chabhal Branch of the respondent-Bank inasmuch as he was regularly engineering false and fabricated complaints against the Branch Manager of the said Branch with a view to demoralizing him and keeping him under unnecessary tension and pressure. Therefore, respondent No. 3 as Controller of the aforesaid Branch acting in good faith and in the administrative interest of the respondent-Bank as also the petitioner verbally counselled him during visits to Chabhal Branch of the respondent-Bank. The petitioner was also called to the regional office of the respondent-Bank and counselled to stop engineering complaints against the Branch Manager and work in the interest of the respondent-Bank. The fact that respondent No. 4 was close to respondent No. 3 has been denied. Respondent No. 4 has also denied the allegations as made against him. He has denied the various allegations of his indulging in corruption. It is stated that the customers of the Bank were satisfied with his working. However, the petitioner created indiscipline amongst the other staff of the Branch by putting hindrances in the conduct of the day to day working of the Chabhal Branch of the respondent- Bank. The petitioner has filed replication to the written statements filed by the respondents and denied the allegations as have been made in the written statements and reiterated those made in the writ petition.