Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 630 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Gupta v. Uttar Bihar Kshetriya

2007-03-28

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.9.2006 contained in annexure 2 by virtue of which the petitioner was directed to hand over complete charge of the Branch including loan document to one Sri Raj Kishore Choudhary working in the said branch. 3. The petitioner has challenged the above direction on the ground that in terms of the regulation which he has brought on record at annexure-6 it is not open to the Area Manager to direct handing over charge to another person for more than six days. The petitioner brings to my notice Clause 10 of annexure-6 to bring home the submission. On perusal of Clause 10 it emerges that the power given to the Area Manager is limited power which has to be exercised with limited object and can be done for a maximum period of six days only. This is to take into account contingencies such as leave/deputation/training on special assignment outside the Branch. 4. This Court in this regard on 20.3.2007 directed learned counsel for the respondents Bank to produce any communication on behalf of the head office as a proof that the order was passed at their level and not by the Area Manager as was the stand of the Bank. The impugned order contained in annexure-2 was supposedly issued on telephonic instruction of the head office. This Court can understand that there must be emergent situations which the head office may require to take but this communication ought to be followed in writing and communicated to the competent authority as a proof of such decision having been taken at the highest level. 5. Today the counsel for the respondent Bank is unable to produce any communication in this regard meaning thereby that there is nothing on record to show that the head office i.e. the Chairman actually communicated his decision telephonically to the Area Manager to divest the petitioner of charge of the branch in question. To that extent the order dated 14.9.2006 contained in annexure-2 seems to be in conflict with the regulation which has been laid down by the Bank and is contained in annexure-6 to the counter affidavit. The order therefore needs to be interferred with. 6. To that extent the order dated 14.9.2006 contained in annexure-2 seems to be in conflict with the regulation which has been laid down by the Bank and is contained in annexure-6 to the counter affidavit. The order therefore needs to be interferred with. 6. However on going through the counter affidavit and the supporting evidence which has been brought on record what has emerged is that branch in question was not being run within the norms which has been set down by the respondents. The action and conduct of the petitioner has been of the kind where the head office had to intervene. The divesting of position of petitioner was done so that a proper investigation could be carried out. Continuation of the petitioner in the branch in question in this background according to the respondent bank would be detrimental to the cause of the branch because the petitioner being the Branch Manager may not allow true facts to emerge. There seems to be force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents. But looking at the facts that it is the respondents themselves who have failed to exercise their powers in accordance with the regulation, this Court has no option but to set aside the order contained in annexure-2. The order dated 14.9.2006 is accordingly quashed. 7. However, looking at the state of affairs which has emerged from perusal of the counter affidavit the respondents bank is given fullest opportunity to pass proper order afresh by the competent authority, if they still feel that in the interest of the branch in question it is desirable to move the petitioner away from his place of posting. 8. This Court can surely take note of that no employee has a vested right to be posted at a particular post as a matter or routine. It is for the employer to decide as to where the service of the concerned employee can be better utilised in the interest of the institution. But while doing so the respondents bank have to take into consideration that the decision to post the petitioner away from the branch in question would not affect the salary and the perks to which he is entitled to, if the necessity for the same is felt by the respondents. 9. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.