Transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons should not be interfered with unless mala fide or in violation of mandatory statutory rules.

S.P. TALUKDAR, J.

1. ASSAILING the order of transfer dated September 19, 2008, the petitioner approached this Court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. GRIEVANCES of the petitioner, as ventilated, may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in Punjab and Sind Bank on May 7, 1973. There had been no complaint whatsoever during his protracted service career. Petitioner is now posted as Special Assistant (Clerical Grade) viz. R.C.C., Kolkata Branch. He joined in the said post about three years back. He is the General Secretary of All India Punjab and Sind Bank Staff Organization, President of Bengal Provincial Bank Employees' Association. There are 26 public sector banks of which respondent bank is one. The wage pattern of employees of all such banks are revised periodically by bipartite settlement. First such settlement was signed on October 19, 1966. In view of certain controversies relating to revision of wage etc. the Union decided to go on strike on April 2, 2008. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) called on all the parties to a conciliation proceeding on March 27, 2008. In such view of the matter, the strike scheduled to be held on April 2, 2008 was postponed.

The authorities, however, took a harsh attitude and started harassing the petitioner for no fault on his part. The bank started a policy of promoting the clerks to officers. The said policy of mass promotions was initiated without following the norms as prescribed by the relevant rules. It was creating much problem as it gave rise to abnormal vacancies in the clerical grade, which again hampered the smooth functioning of the bank. In West Bengal 80 clerical staff were promoted to officer grade. Voice of protest was raised and representation was submitted in this regard.

3. THE authorities out of vengeance served the petitioner with a purported charge-sheet dated May 30, 2008, which was received by him on June 6, 2008. THEre were frivolous and baseless allegations against him. This was done in order to put him under pressure. THE facts complained of allegedly took place during 1995-2005. THE petitioner was not served with the copy of the annexures and as such, he could not submit reply. By letter dated June 10, 2008, he requested the bank respondent to supply the referred records/documents. THE bank authority did not respond to the same. THE petitioner, thus, could not submit his reply to the said charge-sheet dated May 30, 2008. THE charge-sheet is stale, mala fide and without any basis. THE respondent authority by letter dated June 24, 2008, in response to repeated requests and representations, supplied some annexures of the purported charge sheet, which were not authenticated, nor properly marked. Even then the respondent authorities did not supply the entire materials as required for responding to the charge-sheet. THE respondent Nos. 2 and 4, in order to put further pressure upon the petitioner, issued another charge sheet alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is guilty of taking part in trade union activities. Union gave a call for strike on September 23, 2008. THE respondents to terrorize the employees issued illegal order of transfer dated September 19, 2008 on the petitioner. Petitioner and also the Union lodged written petition to the respondents. Respondent No. 3, however, did not allow the petitioner to join office.

4. THE petitioner being the General Secretary of a registered and recognized trade union has every legal right to participate in trade union activity. THE respondent authorities particularly respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in colourable exercise of power and to vindicate their grudge against the petitioner issued such order of transfer. This was done in defiance of the settled norms and in order to restrain the petitioner from taking part in trade union activity. Such order of transfer had been issued mala fide. It had been issued by respondent No. 4, who had no authority to issue