Advocates:
['VIVEK PATHAK', '', 'IMRAN ALI KHAN', 'LALIT SAMANT', 'DHARMENDRA BARTHWAL', 'NALIN SAUN']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 123 of 2020

Dinesh Chandra Jakhmola

...... Petitioner

Vs.

Uttarakhand Schedule Tribe Commission

and Others

..... Respondents

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, Advocate for

the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Mr. D.S. Patni, Sr. Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate for respondent no.4.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

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

2

State 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

3

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 quashe