Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 67
ORISSA HIGH OF COURT, CUTTACK
B.R. SARANGI, J.
Sudhir Kumar Praharaj - Petitioner
versus
State Bank of India & others - Opposite parties
W.P.(C). No.19816 of 2014
Decided On : 24.02.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For petitioner: M/s. S. Patra & S. Rath
For O.P Nos.3,4 & 5 : M/s. R.K. Rath, Sr. Counsel, P.V. Balakrushna, R. Biswal
Headnote:TRANSFER - Entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time an employee is to be transferred from his present posting and ordinarily Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order of transfer - Criteria laid down by Apex Court stated.
In any service when the relationship is that of master and servant, transfer, retirement, promotion etc. are incidents of service. Usually the master has full power to transfer his servant whenever he wants because transfer is ordered looking to the character and quality of work, the servant does. Thus, if the master is of the opinion that a particular servant is required at a particular place for a particular duty, the master has a right to transfer such a servant from one place to another. However, this power of the master is not absolute and should not be exercised capriciously. At the same time, the master should avoid to transfer his servant simply to accommodate the other favoured servant. Furthermore any order of transfer of a servant should be passed in public interest or in the interest of the institution itself where the servant serves. Exigencies of administrative purpose also sometimes persuade the master to transfer the servant from one place to another.
The apex Court held that the order of transfer can be interfered with when
(a) the transfer is mala fide or arbitrary or perverse;
(b) when it adversely alters the service conditions in terms of rank, pay and emoluments;
(c) when guidelines laid down by the department are infringed and lastly;
(d) when it is frequently done;
(e) if there is a statutory infraction. (Paras - 6 to 10)
JUDGMENT :
Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.
The petitioner who is working in the State Bank of India has filed this application challenging the order dated 21.08.2014 wherein information was issued by the Chief General Manager, Human Resources, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan, Mumbai to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India local Head Office, Bhubaneswar intimating that the petitioner has not reported to Kolkata Circle even after lapse of considerable time and the letter dated 06.09.2014 in Annexure-4 issued by opposite party No.5 relieving the petitioner as at close of office on 06.09.2014 with instruction to report to DGM & Circle Development Officer, Kolkata immediately without availing joining time.
2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that from February, 1985 to June, 1992 the petitioner worked in Lucknow circle and on his request the Management transferred him to the State Bank of India Odisha circle. On his eligibility he got promotion from Assistant Manager to Dy. Manager and thereafter to Manager and Chief Manager and finally to Assistant General Manager in the year 2013. The petitioner gave an undertaking to be posted anywhere in India on promotion to the cadre of Assistant General Manager vide Annexure-A/1 dated 18.07.2013. On 02.08.2013 the petitioner was promoted from the cadre of SMGS-IV to SMGS-V in respect of promotion year 2013-14 along with 29 officers in Bhubaneswar Circle pursuant to letter of the Corporate Centre, Mumbai dated 28.07.2013. The Corporate Centre, Mumbai issued transfer order to 16 SMGS-V Officers Out of 29 officers to various Circles/Corporate Centre/Corporate Centre establishments vide Corporate Centre letter dated 30.09.2013. Corporate Centre, Mumbai on 02.12.2013 reminded the Bhubaneswar Circle regarding non-relieving of those 16 officers. In addition to that Corporate Centre advised the Circle to identify replacements for officers who have recently come back to Bhubaneswar Circle. The name of the petitioner was suggested in respect of Susanta Kumar Sahoo who had come back from North East Circle to Bhubaneswar Circle in November, 2010 thereby the Corporate Centre Mumbai approved the replacement recommended by the Circle vide Corporate Centre letter dated 23.01.2014.
On 28.06.2014, 27 officers including opposite party no.6 were promoted from SMGS-IV to SMGS-V for the promotion year 2014-15 thereby on 24.07.2014 the Corporate Centre issued transfer order of 24 out of 27 newly promoted SMGS-V officers to various Circles/Corporate Centers/Corporate Centre establishments. On 21.08.2014 Corporate Centre, Mumbai reminded the Circle about the letter dated 30.09.2013 and 23.01.2014 and requested to relieve the petitioner to join Kolkata Circle immediately and the petitioner was handed over with the transfer order on 06.09.2014 by the Bhubaneswar Circle to join Kolkata Circle without availing joining time wherefrom he has drawn his salary for the months of September, 2014 and October, 2014. The petitioner stated that such action of the opposite parties transferring him from Bhubaneswar Circle to Kolkata Centre suffers from vice of malafide and seeks for interference of this Court.
3. Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the wife of opposite party no.4 misbehaved the petitioner by using filthy language inside the office. Earlier on two different occasions she had misbehaved the petitioner. Immediately the petitioner informed opposite party nos.4 and 5 in their official mobile by way of SMS regarding misbehavior of opposite party no.4. Then the petitioner wanted to meet opposite party no.4, but, he was not permitted. Therefore, when the petitioner made allegation against the wife of opposite party no.4 he was called to the chamber of opposite party no.4 and was threatened to spoil his service career unless he begged apology to his wife in his residence, but the petitioner did not agree. Therefore, at his behest the order of transfer was issued. It is further ur
