Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Vishnu V.B. S/o V.A. Bhasi - Appellant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by its General Manager - Respondent
WA No. 192 of 2025
Decided On : 06-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Transfer orders - Writ appeals filed against transfer orders of employees in a bank - Court held that transfer is a matter of administrative discretion and should not be interfered with unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations - The appellants were transferred as a result of disciplinary proceedings, but the court found no evidence of punitive intent in the transfer orders. (Paras 1 , 3 , 8 , 14 )
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review in transfer matters is limited; courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the employer unless there are allegations of mala fides or statutory violations. (Paras 8 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged their transfer orders issued by the bank, claiming they were punitive measures following disciplinary actions. The learned Single Judge dismissed their petitions, stating that transfer is within the employer's discretion.
Findings of Court:
The court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the transfer orders as they were not shown to be punitive or vitiated by mala fides.
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer orders were punitive and if the court should interfere in the employer's discretion regarding transfers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that transfer orders are generally not subject to judicial review unless there is clear evidence of mala fides or statutory violations.
Result: Writ appeals stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
These writ appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court, 1958, by the respective petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.2372, 4495 and 4550 of 2025. They filed those writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging their respective transfer orders. The appellant in W.A. No.192 of 2025 is working as Assistant Manager at the Regional Office of the respondent Bank in Ernakulam. As per the transfer order dated 10.01.2025, he was transferred to the Regional Office, Ahmedabad. The appellant in W.A. No.358 of 2025, who is working as Manager I-Line in the Kollengode Branch of the respondent Bank, was transferred to Ludhiana Region in Punjab as per the order dated 10.01.2025. The appellant in W.A. No.361 of 2025, who is working as Assistant Manager in Kozhikode main branch was transferred to the Regional Office , Lucknow, as per the order issued on the very same day. As per the impugned judgments dated 21.01.2025 in W.P.(C)No.2372 of 2025 and 07.02.2025 in the remaining two writ petitions, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that transfer and posting are the subject matter better left to the discretion of the competent authority, and the Court should loath to interfere in the transfer and posting of the employees. As far as the order of punishment imposed on the appellants in the disciplinary proceedings is concerned, the learned Single Judge directed the 4 th respondent therein to decide the appeal filed by the appellant in W.A.No.192 of 2025 expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of that judgment. The appellants in W.A. Nos.358 and 361 of 2025 are granted liberty to file statutory appeal before the 2 nd respondent therein within 10 days and the 2 nd respondent was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of filing of the appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. The learned counsels appearing for the appellants argued that against the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them, the appellants filed statutory appeals. The appeal filed by the appellant in W.A. No.192 of 2025 was already rejected by the Appellate Authority. However, the statutory appeals filed by the remaining two appellants are under consideration. It is in the course of disciplinary proceedings the appellants were transferred to distant places as a punishment. In fact, in pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings, punishment of reduction in the scale of pay was imposed on them. Hence, their transfer to distant places is a dual punishment for the same disciplinary action.
4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the disciplinary proceedings culminated in the reduction in the salary of the appellants and the transfer was effected due to administrative reasons and it has nothing to do with disciplinary proceedings.
5. The materials on record would show that the appellants were punished in the disciplinary proceedings by a reduction in the scale of pay. The allegation against the appellant in W.A. No.192 of 2025 is that he accessed confidential files of the Bank without necessary authorisation and shared it in various WhatsApp groups, including the individuals outside the bank’s authorized personnel. The allegation against the appellant in W.A. No.358 of 2025 is that he has posted unwanted and defaming messages in the WhatsApp groups for the officials of the Bank against the Regional Administrative Institution with the intention to provoke and mislead the other officials of the Region. The allegation against the appellant in W.A. No.361 of 2025 is that he has not fulfilled the official duties entrusted to him and during the Review meeting, he argued with the Chief Regional Manager in the presence of Regional Office Officials and Second Line Manager and behaved in an undisciplined manner.
6. Bas
Transfer orders are within the employer's discretion and not subject to judicial review unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations.
Judicial interference in employee transfers is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; otherwise, the employer's prerogative prevails.
Transfer orders are a condition of service; courts will not interfere without proof of mala fides or statutory violations.
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited; transfers are administrative unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Judicial interference in employee transfer orders is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; otherwise, the employer's discretion prevails.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the employer's discretion for better administration in employee transfers, and the limited scope of judicial review under Arti....
Transfers of employees in public service are generally not subject to judicial review unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; transfers are normal incidents of service.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers are valid unless proven to be made in mala fides or in violation of statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
