Back
2013 Supreme(Pat) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.N. HUSSAIN, J.
Md. Abu Muzaffar Nawaz S/o Late Zafrul Hussain resident of Village- Nawaz Apartment, Madhepura, Purnea, P.S - K.Hat, District- Purnea, At present posted as Officer Assistant, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Garh Baneili, Branch, P.S- Kasba, District- Purnea – Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Sharma Complex, Kamalbagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur through its Chairman Mr. R.K. Arora & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15300 of 2012
Decided On : 08-01-2013
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shyam Pd. Mukherjee, Shanti Pratap.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhakar Jha and Ratna Kumar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfers of employees should not be punitive in nature and must adhere to the principles of administrative necessity, without prejudice, and malafide. The court emphasized the need for proper procedure, including an enquiry, before taking punitive measures against employees.
Headnote:
Transfer - Employee Rights - Circular No.PRS/02/2009-10/12/25 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Circular No.PRS/02/2009-10/12/25 - The court discussed the transfer policy of the Bank and the rights of employees under the circular. It highlighted the provisions related to transfer after a period of five years and the requirement for administrative reasons for early transfers. The court also emphasized the need for transfers to be without prejudice and malafide, and the requirement for an enquiry in case of serious allegations before punitive measures are taken.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Office Assistant at a bank, challenged his transfer to a distant place, alleging it was a punitive measure in response to his advocacy for employee rights and grievances. The petitioner had a clean service record and had previously approached the court for promotion and salary fixation, which the authorities had not complied with.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was punitive and not based on administrative exigency. It noted that the authorities had not followed the proper procedure of enquiry or show-cause notice before transferring the petitioner. The court also highlighted the authorities' failure to comply with previous court orders regarding the petitioner's promotion and salary fixation.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the petitioner's transfer, the compliance with transfer policies, and the punitive nature of the transfer without due process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer was punitive and lacked proper procedure, violating the employee's rights. It emphasized the need for transfers to be without prejudice and malafide, and the requirement for an enquiry in case of serious allegations before punitive measures are taken.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned transfer orders, and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner in continuous service at his previous branch without any break due to the impugned orders, granting him all the benefits of service including salary.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging office order vide letter dated 09.08.2012 by which the Chief Manager (HRD), Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office-Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank” for the sake of brevity) transferred the petitioner from Garh Banaili Branch under Purnea Region to Madhubani Branch under Bettiah Region instructing the Garh Banaili Branch to relieve the petitioner forthwith to report to his new place of posting at Madhubani Branch on 16.08.2012. The petitioner also challenges the consequential order vide letter dated 14.08.2012 issued by the Branch Manager of Garh Banaili Branch of the Bank after closing office hours on 14.08.2012 to join Madhubani Branch along with his personal file, leave and salary details advising him to join Madhubani Branch at 10.30 A.M. sharp on 16.08.2012. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents for restraining them from giving effect to the impugned orders dated 09.08.2012 and 14.08.2012.
2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 23.08.2012 after serving two copies thereof upon learned counsel for the respondent-Bank on 17.08.2012. This case was taken up on 27.08.2012 when learned counsel for both the parties were heard and thereafter learned counsel for the respondents sought two weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Thus this case was directed to be listed within top ten cases on 17.09.2012 and the operation of the impugned orders dated 09.08.2012 and 14.08.2012 was stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was initially appointed as Office Assistant in the Bank in the year 1985 and he joined his duty on 29.06.1985 at Kajauri Branch of the erstwhile Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (now called as Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank) and during his tenure he was transferred and posted to different places under Kosi Region and lastly he was posted at Garh Banaili Branch as Office Assistant where he joined on 16.01.2008 and since then he has been discharging his duty efficiently, diligently and to the full satisfaction of his superior authorities due to which his service record is absolutely clean with no adverse entry ever recorded in his character roll during his entire service period.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was Zonal Secretary of all India Gramin Bank Workers Organization and was also holding the post of General Secretary of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Workers Organization, Kosi Unit and in that capacity he espoused the case of employees of the Bank from time to time. The petitioner along with eight other Office Assistants of Purnea Region of the Bank filed CWJC No.11737 of 2011 for a direction to the respondents authorities to consider their case of promotion to the Junior Management Grade Scale-I and the said writ petition was heard along with CWJC No.10363 of 2011 and its analogous cases, which were filed by others with similar grievances. After hearing the parties this court allowed the aforesaid writ petitions vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2012. The said order was affirmed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 01.08.2012 and 17.07.2012 passed in L.P.A. No.778 of 2012 and L.P.A. No.955 of 2012 but in spite of that the foresaid judgment and order of this court has not been complied with by the respondents as yet.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner averred that apart from the aforesaid illegalities committed by the authorities by not promoting the concerned Office Assistants, the question of fixation of salary and other similarly important matters remained pending before the authorities concerned since long and hence the petitioner being an office bearer of the employees organization filed a representation dated 17.05.2012 before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Central Bank of India as well as other high officials pointing out the omission and commission committed by the authorities of the Bank. This
