JUDGMENT :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the order dated 1-12-2017 passed by the 1st respondent/Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for short) transferring the petitioner from Bangalore to Jammu.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:- The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working in the cadre of Assistant Manager in the Establishment Section of the respondent/Bank and the petitioner was due to retire on 31st October, 2019.

3. On 8-11-2016 demonetization of notes of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- was announced by the Government and the process of exchanging demonetized notes began. The RBI was the authority to issue fresh notes and collect back demonetized notes. At that point in time, the petitioner was posted at the CCTV Console Room from September 2015. It transpires that the petitioner sent for training between 7-11-2016 and 10.11.2016. On rejoining after training, the petitioner was posted to the second shift in the CCTV Console Room which was monitoring 7 monitors and capturing images from 164 cameras.

4. Due to demonetization and a direction for exchange of notes with the Bank huge rush was generated with the result many counters had to be opened for the said work. The petitioner was monitoring all the counters exclusively and to monitor other crucial and critical areas as no special guidelines were issued to the petitioner with regard to monitoring of banned notes exchanged.

5. It transpires that it came to light of the Competent Authority that HRM Department Officers operated handicapped/ Senior Citizen Counters on 12- 11-2016 as there was huge amount of banned notes to be exchanged in the said counters. Thereafter questions were raised as how huge transactions came to be done in the said counters within a short span of time when there was a limit for exchange of notes to the extent of Rs.4,000/-.

6. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 1.02.2017 alleging that the petitioner had failed to alert the exchange counter of cash department with regard to the transactions in the said counters, to which the petitioner gave her reply. This resulted in a charge sheet being issued against the petitioner on 17- 02-2017 alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner for not having alerted huge notes exchange. Since the said issue in this petition does not concern the charge sheet, it is not adverted to in these proceedings.

7. It transpires that the incident narrated hereinabove gave rise to an investigation to be conducted by the CBI into the malpractice of notes banned. The CBI summoned the petitioner on 23-10- 2017 for investigation and the CBI went through the video footages and sought inputs and observations from the petitioner. It also transpires that the petitioner was asked to appear for evidence in the trial if need arises. On 1-12-2017 the petitioner was again summoned by the CBI for the purpose of further assistance in the investigation and when she returned back after visiting the office of the CBI, she was handed over an order of transfer on 1-12-2017 which directed that the petitioner be relieved immediately and the petitioner should report to the transferred place Bangalore to Jammu.

8. The petitioner immediately gave a representation 8-12-2017 for its cancellation quoting that the petitioner was suffering from post-menopausal bleeding illness and she was highly diabetic and at the age of 58 she could not travel with the illness. It was also submitted in the representation that she was attending CBI investigation for which reason she has postponed her surgery also. The petitioner enclosed all medical certificates in support of her claim in the representation. The Bank did not heed to the request of the petitioner which drove the petitioner to file this writ petition on 22-12-2017. It is this order of transfer dated 1.12.2017 that is called in question in the insta