Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2122 (RAJ)

Mosam Rani v. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur

2014-12-15

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner by way of present petition has challenged the order dated 16.9.14 (Annex.12) passed by the respondents transferring her at Regional Office, Sikar and further sought direction against the respondents to consider the matter of the petitioner for posting her at Jaipur on the post of Assistant Manager. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of clerk in the respondent-bank and since September, 2013 she was working at SMECCC Branch of the respondent bank at Jaipur, where the respondent No.4 was posted as the Assistant General Manager. According to the petitioner she was promoted on the post of Assistant Manager vide the order dated 26.7.14, however the posting was awaited. In the meantime, because of the alleged unwarranted and objectionable behaviour of the respondent No.4, she lodged an FIR being No. 271/14 on 7.8.14 against the respondent No.4. According to her, she had also made complaints to the departmental authorities earlier in that regard. The petitioner anticipating her transfer outside Jaipur had requested the respondents to post her at Jaipur only as she was a single lady, and was under medical treatment at Jaipur where her parents were staying. However according to the petitioner, the respondent No.4 malaciously issued the order dated 16.9.14 transferring the petitioner at the regional office of SBBJ, Sikar (Annex.12). It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the Government guidelines which are followed by the banks, the unmarried female employees at the request should be posted as far as possible at the place where her parents are stationed and therefore also she had requested the respondents to post her at Jaipur only. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the Government guidelines which are followed by the banks, the unmarried female employees at the request should be posted as far as possible at the place where her parents are stationed and therefore also she had requested the respondents to post her at Jaipur only. The petitioner challenging her transfer order has made the following prayers in the petition:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed, relevant record may kindly be called for and be perused, if this Hon'ble Court so pleases and by way of issue an appropriate writ, order or direction Order dated 16.9.2014 may kindly be held arbitrary and illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the matter of the petitioner for posting her in Jaipur on the post of Assistant Manager and this Hon'ble Court may also graciously be pleased to issue suitable directions to take action against Respondent No.4, who has taken revengeful action against the petitioner." 3. The petition has been resisted by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by filing the reply denying the allegations made in the petition and further contending inter alia that the transfer of the petitioner was made on she having been promoted as per the promotion policy, in terms of Regulation 42 of Officers Services Regulation 1979, according to which every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place in India. It has also been contended that the petitioner herself had given consent as per the consent letter dated 15.4.14 to serve at any branch/office of Bank in the event of her promotion. Even as per the order of promotion dated 26.7.14 (Annex.R/3), it was specifically mentioned that the officers promoted under group-A category their District as well as the Region would be changed and that place of posting would be at least 75 kilomerers away from the present place of posting. Pursuant to the said order of promotion dated 26.7.14, passed by the Zonal Office, the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.4 as per the instructions of his higher officer. The respondents have denied that the parents of the petitioner were staying at Jaipur. Pursuant to the said order of promotion dated 26.7.14, passed by the Zonal Office, the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.4 as per the instructions of his higher officer. The respondents have denied that the parents of the petitioner were staying at Jaipur. According to the respondents, the native place of the petitioner is Samleti, District Mahuwa, District Dausa and her father is serving in BSNL, who is posted at Sikray, District Dausa and, therefore the petitioner has made false statement in the petition to mislead the court.It is also stated by the respondents that the transfer was made in the public and administrative interest and therefore the same should not be interferred with. 4. The respondent NO.4 has also filed separate reply denying the allegations made against him and further contending interalia that the petitioner had not come with the clean hands and the petition was filed with malafide intention making false statements. It has been further contended that the respondent No.4 had come across many incidents relating to the misbehaviour of the petitioner with various staff members of the branch and since the respondent No.4 had reported the incidents to the Dy. General Manager,Jaipur Zone, he had ordered the respondent No.4 to relieve the petitioner with immediate effect for the Zonal Office vide order dated 6.8.14. The petitioner thereafter had lodged the FIR on 7.8.14 against the respondent No.4 making false allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct invoking SC & ST Act. It is further contended that it was the Dy. General Manager of Zonal Office who had taken the decision and that despite her misbehaviour with the other staff members, she was promoted on the post of Assistant Manager. The respondent No.4 has denied that the impugned order of transfer was passed by him with malafide intention or to harass the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anand Sharma for the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer was passed by the respondent No.4 with malafide intention, as the petitioner had lodged the FIR against him on 7.8.14. According to Mr. Shrma, the petitioner was not granted even the joining time though she was entitled as per Regulation NO. 44 of the Service Regulations of 1979. Anand Sharma for the petitioner that the impugned order of transfer was passed by the respondent No.4 with malafide intention, as the petitioner had lodged the FIR against him on 7.8.14. According to Mr. Shrma, the petitioner was not granted even the joining time though she was entitled as per Regulation NO. 44 of the Service Regulations of 1979. He further submitted that though the father of the petitioner is posted at Sikray, District Dausa, her mother is staying at Jaipur and therefore as per the guidelines of the Bank, she should have been posted at the place near to the place where her parents are staying. Mr. Sharma also submitted that the petitioner had made several representations to give her posting at Jaipur considering her health issue and also the security issue, but the respondent No.4 in order to harass her, posted her at Sikar. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 297 he submitted that the Apex Court following the guidelines issued in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 has held that the security of the female employees at the workplace should be paramount consideration. He has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 592 to sbmit that though the order of transfer is an administrative order, the order effected by malafide intention should be interfered with. He also submitted that the order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane to passing of an order of transfer and was based on an irrelevant ground. 6. However, the learned counsel Mr. S. Zakawat Ali for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal for the respondent No.4 vehemently submitted that the petitioner had made mis-statements in the petition with a view to mislead the court, inasmuch as though the father of the petitioner is posted at Sikray, District Dausa, she has stated in the petition that her parents are staying at Jaipur. 1 to 3 and Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal for the respondent No.4 vehemently submitted that the petitioner had made mis-statements in the petition with a view to mislead the court, inasmuch as though the father of the petitioner is posted at Sikray, District Dausa, she has stated in the petition that her parents are staying at Jaipur. They further submitted that after having given consent to be posted at any place in India for the purpose of promotion, the petitioner could not pressurise the Bank authorities to continue her at Jaipur after the promotion order was passed, more particularly when in the order of promotion itself it was specific dally mentioned that every officer shall be liable to be posted atleast 75 kilometers away from the present place of posting. Taking the court to various complaints received from the staff members against the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner was in the habit of making false allegations against the other staff members, and since the respondent No.4 was heading the Branch as the Assistant General Manager, she has made baseless allegations against the respondent No.4 with a view to see that she is posted at Jaipur only. It is also submitted that the internal investigation was also carried out in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent No.4 and other officers, by a lady officer of AGM rank, however no substance was found in any of her allegations. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta (1992) 1 SCC 306 , it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that when the petitioner had given consent and shown her readiness to be posted on promotion anywhere in India and on that basis had got the promotion, she could not challenge her posting at Sikar which was as per the promotion policy. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the documents on record, it clearly transpires that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and has made wrong statement in the petition to the effect that her parents are residing with the petitioner at Jaipur. When the respondents refuted the said statement by contending that her father is serving in BSNL at Sikray District Dausa, she admitted the said fact in her rejoinder. When the respondents refuted the said statement by contending that her father is serving in BSNL at Sikray District Dausa, she admitted the said fact in her rejoinder. The petitioner thus having made such mis-statement in the petition, in order to mislead the court, the petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. Even otherwise also the court does not find any merits in the present petition. As transpiring from the record, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager as per order dated 26.7.14 (Annex.R/3), alongwith other 50 employees. The said order was issued by the Dy. General Manager (HR & Admn.) and it was stated therein that all employees promoted under Group-A, their district as well as the region shall be changed, with a stipulation to post them at-least 75 kilometers away from the present place of posting. It was also stipulated in the said order by the Dy. General Manager that the officers be advised to report at the new place of posting latest by 9.8.2014 without availing any joining time. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner herself had given consent in the promotion consent form on 15.4.14 to the effect that she was prepared to work in any branch/office of the bank if she was selected. In view of the said consent, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that she could not have been transferred outside the Jaipur. 8. It further transpires that apprehending her posting outside Jaipur, she had started making representations as per Annex.8 dated 4.8.14, Annex.9 dated 11.8.14 and Annex. dated 1.9.14, requesting the bank authorities to continue her at Jaipur only, on the ground that she was required to take some treatment on account of the accidental injury sustained by her. It is very pertinent to note that though she had lodged the FIR against the respondent No. 4 on 7.8.14, in none of her representations, she had whispered about the alleged misbehaviour of the respondent No. 4 with her. It also appears that the said FIR was lodged against the respondent No.4 only with a view to pressurise him to post her at Jaipur and because the respondent No.4 had forwarded the complaints made by the staff members against her to the higher authority. It also appears that the said FIR was lodged against the respondent No.4 only with a view to pressurise him to post her at Jaipur and because the respondent No.4 had forwarded the complaints made by the staff members against her to the higher authority. From the overall conduct of the petitioner, the court is constrained to observe that the allegations were levelled against the respondent No.4 by the petitioner to achieve her ulterior motive to continue her at Jaipur only. 9. The court also does not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should have been posted at the place or near the place where her parents are stationed as per the Government guidelines adopted by the respondent Bank. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner with a view to mislead the court, had made mis-statement to the effect that her parents are staying at Jaipur, though admittedly her father is not staying at Jaipurand is serving at Sikray, Dausa. 10. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 11. By this order, the stay application and other pending applications if any, also stand disposed of.Writ Petition and Stay Application Both Dismissed. *******