Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 891 (ORI)

Mamtaz Shariff v. United Bank of India

2007-11-27

A.K.SAMANTARAY, B.P.DAS

body2007
JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — The petitioner, who is working as a Sub-staff in the United Bank of India, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 14.6.2007, transferring him from Nayapalli Branch, Bhubaneswar to Raigarh Branch, in the State of Chhatisgarh, vide Annexure-1 as well as the order relieving him on 21.6.2007, vide Annexure-2. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the said order of transfer is violative of the Agreement made between the Management and the Workers’ Union embodied in paragraph 536 of the “Sastri Award” which reads as follows : “In general the policy should be to limit the transfers to the minimum consistent with banking needs and efficiency. So far as members of the subordinate establishment are concerned, there should be no transfers ordinarily and if there are any transfers at all they should not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred. Even in the case of workmen not belonging to the subordinate staff, as far as possible there should be no transfer outside the State or the language areas in which an employee has been serving except of course, with his consent. In all cases, the number of transfers to which a workman is subject should be strictly limited and normally it should not be more than once in a year.” 3. While issuing notice on the writ petition, this Court by its order dated 24.7.2007 as an interim measure directed continuance of the petitioner in his previous place of posting at Bhubaneswar but the said interim order was vacated by order dated 30.8.2007. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the O.P.-Bank indicating therein that the petitioner has filed this writ peti¬tion by suppressing certain facts and as per the counter affida¬vit, the O.P.-Bank received an allegation against the petitioner from the Management of the U.Co. Bank that the petitioner availed a loan from the U.Co. Bank, Saheednagar Branch at Bhubaneswar and did not pay the said loan as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. On enquiry, it is revealed that the petitioner availed the loan from the U.Co. Bank that the petitioner availed a loan from the U.Co. Bank, Saheednagar Branch at Bhubaneswar and did not pay the said loan as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. On enquiry, it is revealed that the petitioner availed the loan from the U.Co. Bank by forging the signature of the authority and without permission of the O.P.-Bank and during the pendency of such Investigation, the Personnel and Administra¬tion Department of the Head Office of the O.P.-Bank transferred the petitioner on administrative grounds to the proposed Raigarh Branch of the Bank, which is coming under the jurisdiction of the United Bank of India, Orissa-II Region, Sambalpur. Learned counsel for the O.Ps. defends the order of transfer and submits that there is no irregularity in transferring the petitioner to Raigarh Branch of the Bank, which is under the Orissa region. 5. It is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner being a Sub-staff was working as a Cyclostyle Machine Operator at Bhubaneswar and Raigarh is in the State of Chhatisgarh even though under Orissa-II Region. Paragraph 536 of the “Sastri Award” as extracted above, stipulates that there should be no transfers ordinarily in case of members of subordinate establish¬ment and if there are any transfers at all, they should not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred. Even in case of workmen not belonging to the subordinate staff as far as possible there should be no transfer outside the State or the language areas in which an employee has been serving except of course, with his consent. The counter affidavit discloses that the order of transfer has been passed during the pendency of the investigation into the allegations levelled against the petition¬er which is nothing but as a disciplinary measure. This Court in the case of Miss Shantipriya Kar v. Director of Public Instruc¬tion (Schools) and others, reported in 55 (1983) C.L.T. 132, in paragraph-12 held that :- “When the order of transfer is read along with the aforesaid D.O. letter of the Block Development Officer and the confidential report of opposite party No.2, it is manifestly clear that the order of transfer was made on account of the alleged acts of misconduct of the petitioner and as such it was made as a measure of punishment and not purely on administrative grounds. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 averments have also been made about the past misconduct of the petitioner. The facts and circumstances disclosed by the counter affidavit and the aforementioned correspondence would warrant disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner but the power of transfer was used as a disciplinary measure and it was made with motive to circumvent disciplinary action and to bypass the disciplinary machinery. It was improper to transfer the petitioner merely because the Block Development Officer wanted it without the administrative authority going into the merits of the complaint made against the petitioner. Such transfer would, in our opinion, amount to punishment of the petitioner. A punishment can be only inflicted in accordance with the relevant rules. Nor could the punishment be noted out without affording the petitioner suffi¬cient opportunity to meet the case against her.” 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the impugned order of transfer amounts to punishment, for which, we have no hesitation to quash the order of transfer of the petitioner dated 14.6.2007 (Annexure-1) as well as the consequential relieve order dated 21.6.2007 (Annexure-2) and we order accordingly. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost. A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. I agree. Petition allowed.