Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. Dubey and R.P. Gupta, JJ.
Rakesh Khatri
Vs.
Damoh-Panna-Sagar Khetriya Gramin Bank
L.P.A. No. 54 of 1998 (J)
Decided On: 10.07.1998
TRANSFER - MALA FIDE - ADMINISTRATIVE EXIGENCY - BURDEN OF PROOF - JUDICIAL REVIEW: Transfer of an employee is a necessary concomitant of service and cannot be called per se prejudicial. State actions, including transfer orders, cannot be punitive or based on malice. Transfer orders should not violate statutory principles. There is an initial presumption in favor of administrative exigency in transfer orders passed by State Functionaries. The burden of proof lies heavy on the employee/petitioner to show violation of statutory principles or that the order is punitive and a result of mala fides or malice of the controlling officer to harm the employee. Facts suggesting mala fides must be specifically pleaded and material brought on record.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Asstt. Manager in a bank, challenged his transfer from Bandakpur to Chandora branch, alleging mala fides and punitive intent on the part of the bank management. He claimed that the transfer was motivated by his trade union activities and a pending inquiry against him. The bank, in its defense, asserted that the transfer was due to administrative exigencies and to protect the bank's financial interests, as the appellant was allegedly involved in a benami business and had granted loans to customers who purchased from his shop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was not mala fide or punitive, as there was no evidence of personal animosity between the appellant and the bank's Chairman. The court noted that the appellant had been transferred to various branches during his service and that he had remained at only three branches for a significant period. The court also considered the bank's concerns regarding the appellant's alleged involvement in a benami business and his granting of loans to customers who purchased from his shop, which posed a risk to the bank's financial interests.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer of the appellant was mala fide or punitive? 2. Whether the bank's concerns regarding the appellant's alleged involvement in a benami business and his granting of loans to customers who purchased from his shop were legitimate grounds for transfer?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transfer was not mala fide or punitive, as there was no evidence of personal animosity between the appellant and the bank's Chairman. The court noted that the appellant had been transferred to various branches during his service and that he had remained at only three branches for a significant period. The court also considered the bank's concerns regarding the appellant's alleged involvement in a benami business and his granting of loans to customers who purchased from his shop, which posed a risk to the bank's financial interests. 2. The court held that the bank's concerns regarding the appellant's alleged involvement in a benami business and his granting of loans to customers who purchased from his shop were legitimate grounds for transfer, as they posed a risk to the bank's financial interests.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the transfer was not mala fide or punitive and that the bank's concerns regarding the appellant's alleged involvement in a benami business and his granting of loans to customers who purchased from his shop were legitimate grounds for transfer.
R.P. Gupta, J.
1. The only question involved in this L.P.A. is whether he transfer order of the appellant by the respondent/bank from Bandakpur branch to Chandora branch as Asstt. Manager is mala fide or motivated order, punitive in nature and therefore, liable to be struck down.
2. The appellant is feeling aggrieved by order dated 9.2.98 of single bench of this Court whereby his writ petition No. 45/98 was dismissed with observations that the order 22.12.97 of his transfer from Bandakpur to Chandora, by the respondents, was purely an administrative matter. No counsel was present before the single bench on behalf of the petitioner at that time when the matter was fixed for hearing.
3. The admitted facts are that the petitioner has been working as officer of the respondent/bank since 9.4.84. He was an under trainee for first 2 years and thereafter he was posted as officer or branch manager at various branches of the bank as under-
(a) during 1984 to 1986 at various branches as under trainee,
(b) 1986 to 1989 as branch manager, Naogeon,
(c) 20.4.89 to 6.5.93 as branch manager at Kundalpur about 25 Kms. away from Damoh,
(d) 27.5.93 to 2.2.96 as branch manager at Lohati about 28 Kms. from Damoh,
(e) 9.2.96 to 24.10.96 as branch manager at Agasod,
(f) 24.10.96 to 22.12.97 as officer at Bandakpurfor about 6 months and as branch manager for rest of the period.
(g) 22.12.97 order of transfer from Bandakpur to Chandora as branch manager (not complied with by the petitioner) and present W.P. is filed to challenge it.
4. The petitioner's contention is that the transfer order is malafide on the part of the management and prejudicial to him as he was transferred to Bandakpur vide order of 16.10.96 on his representation that there was heart problem of his mother and there was problem of studies of his 3 school going kids. He had requested for transfer to one of the branches near Damoh. He is president of a registered trade union i.e. Gramin Bank Adhikari Sangthan, Damoh. Respondent No. 2/Chairman of the bank was displeased with him due to his legitimate trade union activities. A malafide chargesheet dated 6.12.96 was served on him regarding minor procedural irregularities. He challenged the inquiry proceedings in a civil suit, as necessary safeguard and principles of natural justice were not followed in the same. The suit is pending before the civil judge Class II, Damoh. It is urged that in these circumstances the respondent no. 2 exercised his powers malafide to transfer him to Chandora although his normal tenure of 3 years has not been completed. His representation dated 30.12.97 was dismissed. His performance at Bandakpur was excellent. So, he sought directions that he be not relieved from Bandakpur.
5. The contentions in the return of the respondents were that he has been transferred on administrative exigencies. He was not transferred often earlier but he has worked around Damoh at various places for about 7-8 years and when he was transferred to Agasod he became a truant and would be absent from his duty when checked. He got relieved himself without any order from the bank and made an application to the bank that due to his personal health and other family circumstances he be posted near around Damoh. Bandakpur was a place of choice given by him. No other details were given. The bank took a lenient view in spite of his delinquency at Agasod and posted him at Bandakpur. It is urged that at Bandakpur while acting as branch manager, complaints have been received against him that he is running a 'benami business' of agricultural equipments and pump sets at Damoh in the name of Krishi Sewa Kendra' and he granted loans to only those purchasers who purchased from Krishi Sewa Kendra. So he is mis-utilizing rather abusing his position. A complaint to this effect was lodged by 'Punjab Krishi Udyog' Damoh on 25.11.97.
As regards the allegations of charges against him by the petitioner in the petition, it was asserted that he committed various financial
AI
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
