JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits.Ext.P4 to the extent transferring petitioner from Regional Office, Kochi to Central Office CBD, Belapur at Serial No.60 & Ext.P7 are inconsistent with Ext.P15 & P16 norms and guidelines and quash the same.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 5 to retain in the petitioner in the Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram where petitioner was on deputation on extreme compassionate reason and hardly completed one month at home station.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

3. The petitioner contends that she was appointed as Assistant Manager (Information Technology) in the respondent-bank on 17.12.2007. It is stated that on completion of 4 years tenure, she was transferred to the Regional office, Kochi on inter-zonal transfer by Ext.P1 in the year 2011. Subsequently, the petitioner had made a request for transfer to the Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner was given deputation to the Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram on 16.09.2020. By Ext.P4 order dated 11.11.2020, the petitioner was transferred to Belapur. The said order of transfer is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. It is contended that the petitioner had made repeated representations before the respondents seeking retention at Thiruvananthapuram in view of the fact that she had given birth to twin babies on 10.11.2018 and she is entitled to be retained at the present place of posting. It is further contended that there are other officers including the 6th respondent who have been in service in the present region for much longer than the petitioner and that therefore, even in case a transfer is required, the petitioner could have been retained and the 6th respondent and the other officers who have longer periods of service in the region were liable to be transferred in accordance with Ext.P16 transfer norms. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the transfer is violative of Ext.P15 and Ext.P16 transfer policy and norms of the Bank.

5. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondent-Bank. It is contended therein that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Information Technology) on 17.12.2007. While so, she participated in the direct recruitment process for selection to the post of Manager (IT) MMG Scale II, Specialist Officer and was selected. She joined duty as Manager (IT) in Hyderabad on 05.10.2009. She was transferred to the Regional Office, Kochi and joined service in Kochi on 05.12.2011. It is stated that the Central Bank of India is having two regional offices in Kerala, at Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram which comes under the Chennai Zonal Office. It is stated that on the request made by the petitioner, the petitioner was granted deputation to the Kollam Branch from 03.03.2016 to 27.06.2016. She continued in the Kollam Branch till 31.07.2017. Thereafter, she was granted maternity leave from 04.09.2018 to 02.03.2019 and sabbatical leave from 03.03.2019 to 02.03.2020 as well as privilege leave from 04.03.2020 to 31.03.2020. Later, the petitioner availed sick leave from 01.04.2020 to 01.06.2020 and rejoined duty at Kochi. She was granted deputation to the Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram from 16.09.2020 to 20.11.2020 and was relieved from duty on 23.11.2020 from the Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram consequent to her transfer to the Central Office, Belapur by Ext.P4 order and the petitioner failed to report for duty at Belapur. Later, Ext.P19 memorandum calling for explanation was also issued to the petitioner for unauthorized absence to which Ext.P20 reply was submitted. With regard to the contentions relating to the 6th respo