The petitioner, who is working as Computer Terminal Operator (CTO) in Central Bank of India (Bank) at Vijayawada, is the State President of the Central Bank of India Employees Association, Andhra Pradesh, which is affiliated to the All India Central Bank Employees Federation. The petitioner, since his appointment in 1985, has served the Bank at their various branches. While so, the petitioner who was working in the Regional Office of the Bank at Vijayawada, was by office order dated 20-10-2006 of the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager, was transferred to their branch at Benz Circle on rotation. While the petitioner was working at Benz Circle branch, the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager, by orders dated 28-12-2006 again transferred the petitioner to their branch at Narsaraopet. Impugning the said transfer order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was working in the Regional Office at Vijayawada, by order dated 20-10-2006 of the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager, was transferred to their branch at Benz Circle on rotation. He submits that there is no transfer policy for transfer of employees of clerical cadre throughout the country, and transfers have to be effected only on rotation from branch level to regional level, as envisaged by Circular dated 30-10-1996.

3. He submits that the petitioner is the President of the Central Bank of India Employees Association, Andhra Pradesh, which is affiliated to the All India Central Bank Employees Federation, and as per the policy guidelines, issued in 1992, as reiterated by the Chairperson and Managing Director in c his Circular dated 07-07-2006, the office c bearers of award staff union can be n transferred/rotated within the city, but ignoring n this, the 2nd respondent-Regional Manager, a just within two months of his transfer from the Regional Office to Benz Circle branch, has issued the impugned office order dated 28-12-2006 transferring him from Benz Circle branch to Narsaraopet branch, and more so without assigning any reasons.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned office order of transfer is the result of vindictive attitude on the part of the respondents, and has been issued as a sequel to the demonstration, which the petitioner along with other employees held at the branch after the office hours in protest of the Circular No.6, dated 25-12-2006, issued by the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the transfer of the petitioner having been made in violation of the policy guidelines issued by the Personnel Department in 1992, the Memorandum of Settlement dated 07-11-2006 and the redeployment-cum-transfer policy dated 15-11-2006, is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention that the transfer order made in violation of the transfer policy, is liable to be set aside, he placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1055 of 2005, dated 20-06-2005. He submitted that the impugned transfer order is also fraught with mala fides, and prayed that it be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

6. The respondents filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Bank while reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner was transferred from the Regional Office at Vijayawada to Benz Circle branch on rotation on 20-10-2006.

7. He submitted that pursuant to automation, a Memorandum of Settlement dated 02-06-2005 was entered into by .the managements of 50 banks and representatives of various Trade Unions and award Staff Unions, and as per the said Memorandum of Settlement, which came into effect from 07-11-2006, surplus staff can be deployed at the deficit branches, and having regard to the necessity, they may be posted outside the district within a distance of 100 kilometres, and even though the petitioner is the President of the Central Bank of India Employees Associatio