Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 7283
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J
BERWAL TAKDIR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
INDIAN BANK – Respondent
W.P.(C)-459/2024
Transfer orders are administrative functions and cannot be interfered with unless there is evidence of mala fides or violation of statutory provisions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Transfer of employee - Challenge to transfer order dated 03.01.2024 - Petitioner contended frequent transfers violated Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) - Respondent argued transfer is an incident of service governed by statutory regulations - Court held that transfer orders are not to be interfered with unless mala fides or statutory violations are established - Petitioner failed to prove mala fides or violation of regulations. (Paras 1, 5, 9, 14, 18)
(B) Transfer Policy - The SOP does not confer a vested right to remain in one position for a specified duration - Administrative exigencies can necessitate transfers irrespective of SOP guidelines. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, a Scale-IV officer, challenged his transfer to Hubballi after being transferred to Karnal less than a month prior. He claimed frequent transfers were due to mala fides and violated SOP guidelines. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the Petitioner’s claims, affirming that transfers are within the employer's discretion and governed by statutory regulations. (Paras 14, 18)
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer violated the SOP and if the Petitioner’s frequent transfers were due to mala fides. (Paras 4, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that transfer is an administrative function, and unless there is clear evidence of mala fides or violation of statutory rules, the Court should not interfere with transfer orders. (Paras 9, 14)
Result: Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated.
JUDGMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 11.12.2023 as well as order dated 03.01.2024, whereby Petitioner was transferred to Karnal and ZO-Hubballi, respectively. During the course of hearing, Petitioner presses his challenge only with respect to transfer od 03.01.2024.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 12.01.2024, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submitted that in the past 13 ½ years, Petitioner was transferred at least 13 times. By the last transfer order dated 11.12.2023, Petitioner was transferred to Sadhaura, Karnal Zone, Haryana and Petitioner represented against it on the ground that the Petitioner being a Scale IV officer was being transferred to a Branch which was headed by a Scale III officer. The representation was not decided and Petitioner joined at the said Branch. Challenging the order dated 03.01.2024, Petitioner relied on Clauses (g), (h) and (i) of the ‘Standing Operating Procedure for Transfer and Placement of Officers’ (SOP) of the Respondent to contend that ordinarily the tenure of a Branch Manager should be 3 years in a Branch and it was advisable not to transfer the officer to a lower scale. On these submissions, Court directed that the transfer order dated 03.01.2024 shall not be given effect to and recorded the undertaking of the Petitioner that he would not claim for transfer/posting at Delhi Branch. The interim order continues till date.
3. Petitioner is stated to have been serving with the Respondent/Bank as Scale-IV officer as Chief Manager of Sadhaura Branch in Karnal Zone. He joined the erstwhile Allahabad Bank as Scale-I Probationary Officer on 19.07.2010. Petitioner was promoted to Scale-II Manager in the Allahabad Bank on 29.06.2013 and thereafter to Scale-III on 01.06.2016 and Scale-IV on 01.04.2020. The prime grievance in the present petition relates to the transfer order dated 03.01.2024 posting the Petitioner to Hubballi, Bengaluru and the grievance is largely predicated on the ground that between 2010 to 2023, Petitioner has been transferred 13 times.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner broadly raises three-fold contentions to impugn the transfer order dated 03.01.2024: (a) Petitioner was transferred to Sadhaura Branch, Karnal Zone on 11.12.2023 and on 03.01.2024, within a period of less than 1 month he has been transferred to Hubballi and these frequent transfers are violative of Clause (g) of SOP which provides that normally Branch Managers shall have a tenure of 3 years in a Branch and midyear transfers shall be avoided as far as possible; (b) in the past 13½ years Petitioner has been transferred at least 13 times reflecting mala fides of the higher authorities including the Executive Director, who visited ZO-Karnal and insulted the Petitioner on account of some wrong data provided by the Zonal Office; and (c) Petitioner will be appointed against a post which would amount to reduction of his position to a Scale III officer.
5. Short affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent, wherein it is stated that Petitioner is a Chief Manager in SMG Scale-IV with the Respondent and his services are governed by the Indian Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (‘1979 Regulations’) which are statutory in nature, having been framed by the Board of Directors of the Respondent in consultation with Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 19 read with Section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Regulation 47 of the said Regulations provides that “Every officer is liable to be transferred to any office or Branch of the Bank or to any place in India” and thus Petitioner cannot object to his transfer to any Branch of the Bank being under an all India transfer liability. It is further stated that transfer is an inc
