Back
1990 Supreme(Cal) 176
High Court Of Calcutta
Monoranjan Mallick
ASHOKE KUMAR ROY - Appellant
Versus
UNITED BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
Matter 265 Of 1990
Decided On : 04/20/1990
A bank cannot post an officer to a Gramin Bank sponsored by it without the officer's consent or option, even if the bank has the authority to appoint the Chairman of the Gramin Bank under Section 11(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.
Headnote:
REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT, 1976 - SECTION 11(1) - APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN - BANK OFFICER - OPTION OR CONSENT - SERVICE CONDITIONS - VIOLATION - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF POSTING ORDER - LEGALITY OF APPOINTMENT - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant General Manager (Computerisation) at United Bank of India, challenged his posting order to Gour Gramin Bank as its Chairman, arguing that it amounted to demotion, violated his service conditions, and was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the posting order was not illegal as it was an appointment under Section 11(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, with the approval of NABARD. However, the court found that the bank had violated the petitioner's service conditions by posting him to the Gramin Bank without his consent or option.
Issues: 1. Whether the posting order amounted to demotion. 2. Whether the posting order violated the petitioner's service conditions. 3. Whether the posting order was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 11(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, and held that the appointment of a bank officer as Chairman of a Gramin Bank by the competent authority of the sponsored bank could be made by issuing a posting order. 2. The court held that the petitioner's service conditions did not obligate him to serve in any Gramin Bank sponsored by the bank and that his consent or option was required before posting him to the Gramin Bank. 3. The court found that the bank had not obtained the petitioner's consent or option before posting him to the Gramin Bank and that such posting violated his service conditions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the posting order and the release order issued by the bank.
( 1 ) THE writ petitioner who is working as Assistant General Manager (Computerisation), United Bank of India, Head Office, has moved this Court against the posting order No. 236/80 dated 14th December 1989 being Annexure "e" to the writ petition and the order being Annexure "g" dated 17. 1. 1990 by which he has been released from the Computerisation Department of the Head Office as at the close of business of 17th January, 1990 to take up the assignment as Chairman of the Gour Gramin Bank.
( 2 ) THE petitioner has made representation against the posting/transfer order but the same has been turned down by the respondents. In this writ petition he challenges the impugned order firstly on the ground that the decision to send the petitioner on deputation to Gour Gramin Bank as Chairman amounts to demotion because he is an officer of Scale No. V and only the Scale III officer is to hold the past of Chairman of Gour Gramin Bank. Secondly, the order of posting/transfer is illegal in asmuch as he was sent on deputation to Gour Gramin Bank but before sending the petitioner on deputation to Gour Gramin Bank, no option and/or consent was taken from the petitioner for such deputation which according to the petitioner is in complete violation of the provision of the Circular dated 7. 4. 1982, thirdly, the petitioner has represented his case against the said posting/transfer order on the ground of his physical inconvenience to accept the post as he had fracture in his leg in 1987 and he has been advised by the doctor to restrict his movement and it is not possible to undertake extensive tour which he has to do as Chairman of the Gour Gramin Bank. Fourthly, it is also contended that there are other 22 Scale V officers and the petitioner holding 11th position has been picked up arbitrarily and without any sound basis and the action of the Respondent is therefore arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set aside.
( 3 ) THE Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have contested all the above contentions of the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the Gour Gramin Bank having more than 177 branches has to be manned by an officer of Scale, V in view of the Central Government directive issued in 1987 and the petitioner is not going to be demoted in his rank and he has been posted in the Gour Gramin Bank on taking the approval of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (hereinafter called the NABARD), that regard being had to the petitioner's quality, performance and experience in Rural Banking, the respondent has selected him bonafide and that the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. It is also disputed that the petitioner will have to undertake to constant tour and it is submitted that the petitioner being the Chairman of the Gour Gramin Bank will be in a position to look his own business and it will be within his discretion either to make the tour himself or to direct the other officers to do the job for him. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been sent on deputation for a period of three years and over and above his pay and allowances he would get the deputation allowance at the rate of 15% of his pay and therefore he will he getting more financial benefit on being deputed to Gour Gramin Bank. It is further submitted that in 1982 the Respondent Bank called for some option for deputation to the, Gramin Banks sponsored by the United Bank of India but since then that system has been discontinued and several officers of the bank as is mentioned in the list as annexure 'b' to the affidavit-in-opposition which shows that the officers of the bank have been posted as Chairman of the different Regional Rural Banks without seeking option.
( 4 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply, all these contentions have been refuted by the petitioner and the additional grounds have been taken against the impugned posting/transfer. It is submitted that under section 11 (1) of the Regional Rural Ban
