JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the inquiry report dated 19.09.2019 submitted by Uttarakhand Scheduled Tribe Commission on a complaint filed by Sri Kamal Singh Tomar (Senior Assistant), S.B.I., New Cantt. Road, Dehradun and against the transfer order vide letter No.R-5/HR/DDUN/792 Dated 26/12/2019 issued by the Regional Manager.

(ii) Issue any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, in favour of the Petitioner as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition to the Petitioner."

2. Petitioner was posted in the Regional Office of the State Bank of India, Region-5, New Cantt. Road, Dehradun (for short 'the Bank'). The respondent no.4 was also posted in the same branch of the Bank. Both, petitioner and respondent no.4 were office bearers of the tate Bank of India Staff Association. They were rivals. Respondent no.4 made a complaint against the petitioner to the Uttarakhand Schedule Tribes Commission (for short 'the Commission'). The Commission inquired into the matter and on 19.09.2019 recommended that the petitioner may be transferred to some other place. The recommendation was made by the Commission on 19.09.2019 and on 26.12.2019, the petitioner was transferred at Bhupatwala Branch. This transfer order is impugned alongwith the report dated 19.09.2019 of the Commission.

3. Counter affidavits have been filed by all the respondents. Respondent no.1 himself has filed a counter affidavit and according to it, after the inquiry into the complaint made by respondent no.4, the recommendations were made by the Commission under Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Commission for the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act'). Alongwith counter affidavit, some of the proceedings have also been enclosed.

4. Respondent nos.2 and 3, in their separate counter affidavit, have averred that on a complaint of respondent no.4, an investigation was done by the Bank and report dated 09.08.2019 was submitted, wherein, the petitioner was found guilty of uttering caste coloured remarks. In the additional counter affidavit, respondent nos.2 and 3 have stated that transfer has not been made merely on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission, instead, the Bank has also considered the report of the Inquiry Officer of the Bank.

5. In his counter affidavit, respondent no.4 has stated that he was tortured by the petitioner on the basis of his caste and based on the evidence, the Commission has rightly made recommendation on 19.09.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the impugned transfer order appears to be non-stigmatic and non-punitive, but, in fact, the Bank has acted upon the recommendation of the Commission; the Commission did not independently inquired into the matter, instead, it relied upon an inquiry committed by the Bank Officer; the Commission may only make its recommendation to the Government; the impugned transfer order is, in fact, punitive in nature and without affording the opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has been transferred. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned transfer order as well as the report of the Commission dated 19.09.2019 are liable to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 would submit that the Commission has only made recommendation based on its inquiry.

8. On behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3, it is submitted that recommendations are not the sole basis for transferring the petitioner. In fact, it is argued that the Bank had already conducted an internal inquiry and having considered all the attending factors, transfer has been made.

9. It is also informed that now on 21.11.2020, the respondent no.4 has also been transferred to some other branch.

10. On behalf of respondent no.4, it is argued that the petitioner keeps personal grudge against the respondent no.4 and ha