Deputation of an employee to another bank without consent is impermissible, and non-compliance with transfer orders cannot entail penal consequences.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who was holding the post of General manager of Bank of India, Lucknow, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated april 12, 1999, whereby petitioner was deputed as a General Manager of Gramin Bank, farrukhabad, the order dated May 29, 1989 whereby the petitioner was advised to report to the Regional Manager, Farrukhabad, charge-sheet dated December 20, 1989, notice dated February 19, 1990 and the order dated june 17, 1991, passed by respondent No. 2 removing the petitioner from the aforesaid post. Prayers for a mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to continue the disciplinary proceedings, to make payment of the arrears of salary from March, 1989, to take a decision on the resignation letter dated May 31, 1989 and to compensate the petitioner adequately have also been made.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner joined the bank as a probationer in pursuance of appointment letter dated April 1, 1975. According to the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the petitioner could be posted in India or outside India, where the bank has or might thereafter open offices or branches. After some time, due to his personal ability and sincerity to the job, petitioner was appointed as Manager of southern branch and was permitted to open a new branch at lucknow. Petitioner out of his sincerity achieved the business target for the whole year 1978. He was, therefore, posted as Manager of mahanagar branch at Lucknow. Petitioner got the Mahanagar branch upgraded as the largest branch in Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner had unblemished record of service and was always serious and sincere to his job. He was, therefore, posted as Development Manager (Marketing and Public Relations) and also performed his duties to the best of his efficiency at Kumbh Mela in the year 1988. Unfortunately, petitioner was manhandled by the union leaders and his henchmen on february 2, 1989. In the said incident, he also suffered bodily injuries. About the said incident, petitioner made a complaint to the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 advised the petitioner to submit his leave application. On the advice received from respondent No. 2, petitioner informed him that he will not come to the office to avoid any untoward further incident. Inspite of written complaint made by the petitioner, no action was taken by the respondent No. 2 against the union leaders responsible for the aforesaid incident. Consequently, the petitioner had to send a representation to the respondent No. 2 informing him that petitioner was not attending the office as per advice given by respondent no. 2 and requested him to provide security and working conditions and to take action against the undisciplined elements. Petitioner also made a demand for payment of salary for the month of March, 1989, from respondent no. 2. It was on April 8, 1989, that the petitioner received a letter dated March 17, 1989 from respondent No, 2 refusing to pay the salary to the petitioner and asked him to report for duties and to facilitate the investigation. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, petitioner replied to respondent No. 2 that he was not attending the office on this advice. He was, however, willing to attend the office if normal conditions are restored. It was also intimated by him that he was performing his job without entering the premises of the office. It was on April 16, 1989 that the respondent No. 2 without seeking consent of the petitioner in writing or otherwise decided to depute the petitioner as General manager, Farrukhabad Gramin Bank. He also passed an order to that effect, which was never served upon the petitioner. After passing the aforesaid order, respondent No. 2 relieved the petitioner from the Zonal Office and asked the petitioner to report to th