2001 Supreme(SC) 673

2001(3) Supreme 436
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
State Bank of India -Appellant
versus
Anjan Sanyal & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 226 of 1997
Decided on 12-4-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : H.N. Salve, Solicitor General, Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Kapur and Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.S. Ray, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Sen, S.K. Bhattacharjee and Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was not only wrong in setting aside the order of transfer on an erroneous ground of its non-existence or its non-communication to the employee but also seriously erred in granting salary and other pecuniary benefits to an errant officer who did not obey but flouted his valid order of transfer.

Headnote:(i) State Bank of India Officers Rules-Rule 47 read with Rule 50(1)-Order of transfer of SBI employee-Constitution of India-Article 226-Scope of interference with an order of transfer.

       Held : An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the Service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order. (Para 4)

       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 226-Order of transfer-Interfered by High Court on the ground that it had not been served though employee had knowledge-Whether correct? (No)-Case law referred on the theory No work no pay in relation to flouting of an order.

       Held : In view of the aforesaid correspondence between the employee and the employer, we are indeed surprised, how the High Court could rely upon a sentence in the letter of 30th April 1991, wherein a mention had been made that the officer concerned was not advised in writing by the Branch at the material time and it is on the basis of this sentence, the High Court jumped to the conclusion that neither there existed an order of transfer nor it had been commnunicated to the respondent. The Bank authorities, on the other hand, have been repeatedly intimating the respondent that he is remaining absent without joining at the place to which he was transferred but yet the employee concerned did not comply with the order in question. Having desperate in their attempt to give effect to a lawful order of transfer, when the authorities, took a sympathetic attitude and posted the respondent temporarily to M.B. Street, Calcutta on 19.7.1991 and then transferred him to Siliguri on 8.8.1991, the High Court finds fault with the same, on the ground that he having been already transferred to Mumbai, could not have been posted to the M.B. Street, Calcutta without cancellation of the earlier order and further could not have been transferred to Siliguri. This in our view is an entirely erroneous approach of the High Court in dealing with the legality of an order of transfer. The entire fact situation unerringly point out to one fact namely the respondent flouted the orders of transfer, did not join the place of posting, did not apply for or take leave for his absence, did not discharge his duties, and yet the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, not only set aside the order of transfer on a pretext which does not appeal to us with regard to the non-communication of the orders of transfer and even directed that the respondent would be entitled to his salary, increment, promotion and then only, could be considered for further transfer to anywhere else. To us, it appears that the High Court has granted premium to an errant officer, who did not obey the orders of transfer and did not discharge any duty for which conduct of his, he could have been proceeded with, in a departmental proceeding on te charge of gross misconduct and could have been punished. (Para 4)

       Held finally : The order of transfer having been held by us to be valid and the employee having not obeyed the same, and not having discharged the duties, but yet continuing in service, how the period should be dealt with, will depend upon the relevant rules and regulations of the Bank. We are told that the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules deal with the said situation, and, therefore, the competent authority of the bank would deal with the same. But we have no hesitation in setting aside the directions of the High Court, directing the bank to pay the salary and other benefits to the respondent in the case in hand. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court and allow this appeal. The writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dismissed. (Para 6)