Ghulam Mohammed

This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed in Writ Petition No.16019 of 2010. The writ petitioner/appellant was working as a Customer Relation Associate with the State Bank of India at its M.V.P. Colony Branch at Visakhapatnam. Through an order dated 09.06.2010, he has been transferred to Rajam Branch and accordingly, he was relieved of his duties at the closing of business hours on 09.06.2010 with instructions to report before the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rajam Branch on 10.06.2010 without availing joining time. That gave rise to the writ petition.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that he has studied M.Sc. (Computer Science) and M.A. (Public Administration) prior to joining the service of State Bank of India on 03.03.2008. With a view to pursue Ph.D course, the petitioner submitted an application seeking ‘No Objection’ for pursuing his Ph.D course. Though, such a request was initially turned down, however the necessary permission was accorded on 03.05.2010 subject to the stipulations contained therein. In quick succession thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 09.06.2010 transferring the petitioner to far-off Rajam Branch. The writ petitioner /appellant claimed that it will be difficult to pursue his Ph.D course from Rajam and hence, requested to retain him at Visakhapatnam at any one of the branches of the Bank. It is also contended by the petitioner that he has not completed five years of service at Visakhapatnam and normally the award staff would not be transferred before completion of five years of service at a place. The guidelines also stipulate that the transfer may be effected within the limits of the same centre/municipal/urban agglomeration. Rajam Branch is far away from Visakhapatnam city and hence, the transfer order posting him thereto is contrary to the guidelines of the bank. It is also contended that no substitute was posted in his place and hence he pleaded that he may be directed to be retained at the M.V.P. Branch at Visakhapatnam City.

3. Manager (H.R.), Region 1, Visakhapatnam of the State Bank of India, filed a detailed counter affidavit. It was reiterated that the writ petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds and such an action was in conformity with the service regulations framed by the Bank. In paragraphs 4 and 6 of the counter affidavit, it is alleged against the petitioner as under:

“4. I submit that there have been complaints against the petitioner subsequent to his joining the service with regard to his arrogant and erratic behaviour with the valuable customers of the bank who approached the bank in the process of carrying out their financial transactions. The petitioner was counseled by the superior officers on various occasions, keeping in view that he was a new entrant and that he requires such guidance and advise from the superior officers of the bank for mending his behaviour with the customers of the bank. I further submit that inspite of such advise and counseling from the superior officers there was no improvement in the behaviour of the petitioner in his dealing with the customers across the counter and on 11/3/2010 a complaint was received by the General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad with copies marked to the Bank Officials at Visakhapatnam including the branch manager of MVP Branch, where the petitioner was working, from a customer by name Mrs. K.Srilakshmi, Secretary, Visakha Engineering College of M/s Ambedkar Educational and Welfare Society against the petitioner. It was stated that in the complaint that the above named society was holding an account with MVP Branch of each bank at Visakhapatnam and was having credit facilities of Rs.5 crores and that they visited our branch regularly for banking transactions. It was complained that inspite of their good and cordial relations with the staff of the bank they were facing a problem frequently from Sri D. Vasanth Kumar