ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 5.12.2017 (Annexure P/19), 14.12.2017 (Annexure P/21) and 7.3.2018 (Annexure-P/27). 2. Facts necessary for just disposal of the petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Probationary Officer on 8.10.1998 in JMGS-I and she was promoted upto the post of General Manager, Scale-IV Officer in the respondent No. 1 Bank. During her service career, she worked diligently with utmost satisfaction of the authorities and there was no complaint against the petitioner. After joining the Bank, petitioner regularly attained academic qualifications and is hold professional qualifications of Chartered Financial Analyst awarded by the Institute of the Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, Tripura JAIIB and CAIIB (Indian Institute of Banking & Finance, Mumbai). On 2.9.2016, the respondent No.1 – Bank has issued a communication in respect of promotion of Senior Manager (MMGS-III) to the post of Chief Manager (SMGS-IV). In the said list petitioner's name finds place at serial No. 18 and place of posting was shown to be Indore, P.Y. Road-Branch within Bhopal Zone headed by the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, another communication dated 23.9.2016 has been issued by the respondent No. 2 informing the petitioner that Competent Authority has decided to continue the petitioner's services as In-Charge at P.Y. RoadBranch, Indore. Prior to that on 20.9.2016, charge of Branch Officer, P.Y. Road, Indore was handed over to petitioner by the then Chief Manager. On the basis of above transfer orders, spouse of the petitioner applied for transfer to Indore, who was working as Chief Manager in State Bank of India at Ahmedabad. He was transferred after a year on 13.1.2017 and joined State Bank of India at Indore. The P. Y. Road Branch was regularly categorized as high risk/fraud prone branch for many years and had continuous/repeated serious irregularities in RBIA 2015 and 2016. RBIA (Risk Based Internal Audit) is being conducted yearly in high risk branches by Head Office, Inspection Department, New Delhi. With her dedication, continuous efforts, focused approach and hard work, the petitioner was able to reduce the serious irregularities (FLASH REPORT) to just 4 points in RBIA in June, 2017. 3. Due to positive approach and hard work by the petitioner, P. Y. Road Branch was rated top Branch in business performance among metro branches of Bhopal Zone. With her dedication, continuous efforts, focused approach and hard work, the petitioner was able to reduce the serious irregularities (FLASH REPORT) to just 4 points in RBIA in June, 2017. 3. Due to positive approach and hard work by the petitioner, P. Y. Road Branch was rated top Branch in business performance among metro branches of Bhopal Zone. Even Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank awarded Letter of Appreciation to the petitioner by communication dated 15.11.2016. The petitioner observed many more serious irregularities and system and procedural lapses in loan accounts of the Branch, in addition to many lapses/irregularities, mentioned in RBIA report for 2015 and 2016. The petitioner therefore, vide communication dated 31.12.2016 sent details of serious system and procedure lapses, mentioning detailed facts with a prayer to conduct special audit of the Branch to deeply look into all accounts to identify the lapses and initiate necessary remedial actions to safeguard the Bank's interest to her immediate controller i.e. respondent No. 3. 4. The petitioner, thereafter has informed her senior officers regarding the irregularities committed by the respondent No. 4 but no action has been taken in the matter. However, instead of taking any action in the matter against the respondent No. 3, the communication dated 5.12.2017 issued by respondent No. 3 has been served on the petitioner disclosing the fact that head office has decided the transfer of the petitioner from Indore to Sarsawan, District Jabalpur and aforesaid communication was received by the petitioner through e-mail from the office of respondent No. 4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being a Scale-IV Officer (Chief Manager), respondent No. 3 has no authority or jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid communication. Since no proper order of the transfer has been served upon the petitioner for considerable time and even after submitting her representation letters addressed to respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. When no proper reply was received, the petitioner was left with no option but to submit application under RTI (Right to Information Act) for seeking copy of transfer. In response to which, the Public Information Officer of the Bank by communication dated 6.3.2018, did not supply information as per points No. 2, 3 and 4 of RTI application but supplied the copy of transfer letter addressed to Zonal Office dated 14.12.2017 mentioning petitioner's transfer. In response to which, the Public Information Officer of the Bank by communication dated 6.3.2018, did not supply information as per points No. 2, 3 and 4 of RTI application but supplied the copy of transfer letter addressed to Zonal Office dated 14.12.2017 mentioning petitioner's transfer. The Bank has issued circular dated 4.10.2017 in respect of classification of Branches as on 31.3.2017, which clearly discloses that Bank has notified five categories of Branches i.e. Small, Medium, Large, Very Large and Exceptional Large, in which Officers from Scale-I Officer to Scale-V officer can be posted as a Branch Manager. 6. It is submitted that P. Y. Road Branch, where petitioner is holding the post of Branch Manager being the Scale-IV (Chief Manager) under the category of Very Large Branch, finds place at Sr. No. 224 in chart under respondent No. 3 Zone, whereas the place of new posting, i.e., Branch Sarsawan, District Jabalpur is a small branch which is mentioned at Sr. No. 263, where Scale-I Officer can be posted as Branch Manager, therefore, the impugned transfer order/communication transferring the petitioner from Very Large Branch to Small Branch is lowering in her status from Chief Manager (Scale-IV Officer) to Scale-I Officer, which is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India has issued communication dated 8.8.2014 for transfer of female employees in Public Sector Bank minimizing their hardship, which provides to accommodate as far as possible placement/transfer of married women employee on her request, at her place where her husband is stationed or as near as possible to that place or vice versa. However, by the impugned transfer order, the petitioner has been posted from Indore to Sarsawan, District Jabalpur at the distance of more than 600 kms., that too without any request of the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner has been transferred to Indore on 13/10/2017 from Ahmedabad, so that petitioner and her husband could settle their family lives at Indore. 7. The petitioner has submitted a representation against the said transfer order from time to time. By communication dated 7.3.2018, it was informed to the petitioner that her transfer has been done as per administrative and service exigencies of the Bank and petitioner was directed to join at new place of posting. 7. The petitioner has submitted a representation against the said transfer order from time to time. By communication dated 7.3.2018, it was informed to the petitioner that her transfer has been done as per administrative and service exigencies of the Bank and petitioner was directed to join at new place of posting. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted another representation dated 7.3.2018 to Grievance Committee HRD (IR Cell) with a prayer for review but no response to the said representation has been given to till date. 8. Respondent No. 1 Bank has filed reply and in the reply, the Bank has stated that impugned transfer order has been issued by the competent authority as per transfer policy and on account of administrative and service exigencies of the Bank and is in accordance of the service rules & regulations of the Respondent No. 1 Bank. As per clause 24 (10) issued on 4.6.2014, it clearly states that for the officers in Scale-IV and above, Management will be guided by the considerations about the suitability of the Officers for a particular post, Bank's requirement for these category of Officers and other exigencies. The petitioner being in Scale-IV rank, comes in the executive cadre of the Bank. The respondent No. 4 being Zonal Manager – Bhopal at the relevant point of time has exercised his powers as Zonal Head in accordance of the rules and regulations of the respondent No. 1 Bank and has complied with the management decisions and has nothing personal or biased against the petitioner. The allegations made against the respondent No. 4 are baseless, frivolous and derogatory and to malign the image of the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 1 Bank further stated that the petitioner was directed to continue her services as In-charge at P. Y. Road Branch, Indore. However, this may not prevent the respondents to transfer her services in future and also the transfer of spouse may not be a reason to deter the respondents to transfer the employee in the interest of the respondent No.1 Bank, if so required. 9. The respondent No. 1 in the reply has admitted that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have no authority to transfer the services of the petitioner. 9. The respondent No. 1 in the reply has admitted that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have no authority to transfer the services of the petitioner. In fact the Head Office of the respondent No. 1 Bank vide letter dated 14.12.2017 have communicated/conveyed the transfer order of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner on the same day via e-mail and through courier on 19.12.2017. However, inadvertently the date of the said letter instead of 14.12.2017 was mentioned as 5.12.2017. The Head Office of the Bank in note prepared dated 11.12.2017 had approved the transfer of Scale-IV Officer ordered including the petitioner. 10. The representation submitted by the petitioner was properly relied vide letter dated 6.3.2018 and the information which is sought by the petitioner was duly given to her. The Bank's circular dated 4.10.2017 has been issued as a guide note. The respondents have also admitted the circular issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India in respect of transfer of female employees in public sector bank which provides to accommodate as far as possible placement/transfer of married woman employee on her request, at her place where her husband is stationed or as near as possible to that place, or vice versa. However, the Officers' Service Regulations 1982 as updated upto 31.8.2013 of the respondent No.1 Bank inter alia provides that every officer of the Bank can be transferred to any office of the Bank or any branch or at any place in India. As already submitted supra that the petitioner has been transferred to Sarsawan, District Jabalpur issued by the competent authority on account of administrative and service exigencies of the bank and are in accordance of the service rules & regulations of the Respondent No. 1 Bank. As per the transfer policy dated 4.6.2014, clause No. 24 (10) clearly states that for officers in Scale-IV and above, Management will be guided by the considerations about the suitability of the officers for a particular post. Respondent No. 1 Bank further stated that transfer of the petitioner is bona fide and as per the transfer rules, thus, the said transfer order does not require any interference and the petition needs to be dismissed. 11. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by the Respondent No. 1 Bank. Respondent No. 1 Bank further stated that transfer of the petitioner is bona fide and as per the transfer rules, thus, the said transfer order does not require any interference and the petition needs to be dismissed. 11. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by the Respondent No. 1 Bank. The petitioner submits that so far as transfer policy dated 4.6.2014 is concerned, clause No. 24 (10) clearly states that officers in Scale-IV and above, Management will be guided by the consideration about the suitability of the officers for a particular post. On that basis, it was tried to justify that since petitioner is holding the post of Scale-IV Officer and therefore, the contention of the petitioner in respect of violation of transfer policy dated 4.6.2014 is not tenable. 12. In this regard, the petitioner produced clause No. 20 of the policy dated 4.6.2014, which provides time-lines for Transfer. The aforesaid clause mentions about the MOF guidelines issued vide letters dated 3.5.2012 and 12.7.2012. Clause 3 of the said circular/guideline clearly provides that any transfer of officer after June even on administrative exigency except on promotion would require prior approval of Board of Directors. In the present case, the petitioner was transferred by impugned order dated 14.12.2017 which is after June. Under these circumstances, in respect of transfer of petitioner there should be approval of Board, i.e., Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 Bank. In the present case, such approval was not taken by the Bank before issuing the impugned transfer order. The respondent No. 1 Bank has relied upon the document dated 11.12.2017, however, looking to the same, it is clear that same cannot be said to be issued with approval of Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 Bank. Therefore, the stand of the respondent No. 1 Bank that competent authority has issued the impugned transfer order, is untenable and denied. Under the garb of administrative and service exigencies, the petitioner has been transferred by the incompetent authority and the single transfer of the petitioner is being given effect to and that too without following the due procedure. Moreover, the respondents have thoroughly relied upon administrative and service exigencies, however, in their note-sheet which is annexed as Annexure-P/3, they have merely stated as reason of impugned transfer as “due to service exigencies”. 13. Moreover, the respondents have thoroughly relied upon administrative and service exigencies, however, in their note-sheet which is annexed as Annexure-P/3, they have merely stated as reason of impugned transfer as “due to service exigencies”. 13. In light of the aforesaid, respondents have failed to substantiate their own documents to justify their action in transferring the petitioner from Indore Branch to Sarsawan, District Jabalpur. So far as change of status is concerned, she has been transferred to a Branch where Scale-I Officer is to be posted as a Branch Manager, whereas the petitioner is holding the post of Scale-IV Officer. The respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioner has relied upon classification of branches dated 4.2.2017, is a guide note. 14. Petitioner in the rejoinder submits that the aforesaid classification of branches has been approved by the Board vide letter dated 27.9.2017, as the policy regarding classification of branches. The said document further shows that the aforesaid classification has been approved by Board in terms of regulation 6 (2) of Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Service Regulations. Under these circumstances, the stand taken by the Bank in the reply that Annexure-P/22 is only the guide note, is contrary to record; once the classification has been approved by the Board in terms of the regulation of the Bank and the said Regulations are framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 readwith sub-section 2 of section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, then Annexure-P/22 classification of branches is having the statutory force and cannot be merely said to be guide note and therefore, respondent No. 1 Bank cannot be permitted to change the status of petitioner under the grab of transfer showing it to be service and administrative exigencies. 15. The petitioner further states that all the banks are obliged to follow the policy laid down in circular dated 8.8.2014 in respect of transfer of family employees and respondent No. 1 Bank is not permitted to take the shelter of Regulation, 1982 in respect of transfer of officers of the Bank at their own whim. In fact, being Scale-IV woman officer, respondent No. 1 Bank is obliged to follow the guidelines dated 8.8.2014 in letter and spirit. However, contrary to same, by impugned transfer order, petitioner has been subjected to transfer at Sarsawan, District Jabalpur at distance of 600 kms. In fact, being Scale-IV woman officer, respondent No. 1 Bank is obliged to follow the guidelines dated 8.8.2014 in letter and spirit. However, contrary to same, by impugned transfer order, petitioner has been subjected to transfer at Sarsawan, District Jabalpur at distance of 600 kms. from the present place of posting that too, where basic facilities are not available. 16. The respondents also filed additional reply to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner denying all the allegations made in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 18. In the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Probationary Officer on 8.10.1998 in JMGS-I and she was promoted upto the post of General Manager, Scale-IV officer in the respondent No. 1 Bank. The petitioner was given the charge of Chief Manager Scale-IV at P. Y. Road Branch, Indore. Husband of the petitioner was also working as Chief Manager in State Bank of India at Ahmedabad. He was transferred after a year on 13.1.2017 and joined State Bank of India at Indore. The performance of the petitioner where the petitioner posted was full of satisfaction and she has received Letter of appreciation by the head office also. On 22.9.2016 when she has joined at Branch, she found many more serious irregularities in system and procedural lapses in loan accounts of the branch. The petitioner therefore, informed this fact to head office vide communication dated 3.12.2016. She also made complaint against the respondent No. 4. However, the respondent No. 4, with ulterior motive, was able to manage to transfer the petitioner and vide communication dated 5.12.2017 issued by respondent No. 3 has been served on the petitioner disclosing the fact that head office has decided the transfer of the petitioner from Indore to Sarsawan, District Jabalpur and aforesaid communication was received by the petitioner through e-mail from the office of respondent No. 4. After receiving such communication, the petitioner has submitted an application under RTI (Right to Information Act) for seeking copy of transfer. In response to which, the Public Information Officer of the Bank by communication dated 6.3.2018, did not supply information as per points No. z2, 3 and 4 of RTI application but supplied the copy of transfer letter addressed to zonal office dated 14.12.2017 mentioning petitioner's transfer. In response to which, the Public Information Officer of the Bank by communication dated 6.3.2018, did not supply information as per points No. z2, 3 and 4 of RTI application but supplied the copy of transfer letter addressed to zonal office dated 14.12.2017 mentioning petitioner's transfer. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents and respondent vide communication has informed the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has been issued in approval of Board. Being aggrieved by this communication, petitioner filed another representation before the higher authority but she has not received any response, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 19. The said transfer order has been challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds: (1) that the same has been issued by an incompetent authority. (2) that it has been issued contrary to the transfer policy/guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. (3) The same has been issued with an ulterior motive at the behest of Respondent No. 4. (4) The same has been issued lowering in her status from Chief Manager (Scale-IV officer) to Scale-I officer. 20. So far as grounds No. 1 and 2 are concerned, the respondents have relied on clause 24 (10) issued on 4.6.2014, according to which Officers in Scale-IV and above Management will be guided by the considerations about the suitability of the Officers for a particular post, Bank's requirement for these category of Officers and other exigencies. It was tried to justify that since the petitioner was Scale-IV officer and therefore, respondents showing the bona-fide stated that the impugned transfer order has been issued in service and administrative exigencies. The Bank's circular dated 4.10.2017 has been issued as a guide note. The respondents have also admitted the circular issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India in respect of transfer of female employees in Public sector bank, which provides to accommodate as far as possible placement/transfer of married woman employee on her request, at her place where her husband is stationed or as near as possible to that place or vice versa. 21. Clause 20 of the policy dated 4.6.2014 reads as under: “20. 21. Clause 20 of the policy dated 4.6.2014 reads as under: “20. Time-lines for Transfer” -- In terms of MOf guidelines issued vide letter No. F.No. 5.5.2012-IR dated 3.5.2012 and 12.7.2012, all transfer orders should be issued during the period of March to June every year. However, transfers on promotion can be done after June as and when these become due. Any transfer of officers after June, even on administrative exigencies, except on promotion, shall require Board's approval except under following circumstances: “1. Transfer for manning new branches.; 2. Transfer for filing up vacancies arising out on account of death/retirement/voluntary retirement / resignation / abandonment of employment; 3. Transfer necessitated as consequence of initiation of disciplinary proceedings; and 4. Transfer on ground of marriage of employee in the course of the year with the intent of keeping spouse together.” 22. As per the said circular, it clearly mentions that any transfer of officer should be issued during the period from March to June every year. However, transfer on promotion can be done after June, as and when these become due. It also makes clear that any transfer of officer after June even on administrative exigency except on promotion would require prior approval of the Board of Director. 23. In the present case, petitioner was served by the impugned transfer order dated 14.12.2017 which is after June. Under these circumstances, in respect of transfer of petitioner, there should be approval of Board of Directors by respondent No. 1 Bank. 24. In the present case, respondent No. 1-Bank relied upon the document dated 11.12.2017, however, looking to the same it is clear that the same cannot be said to be issued without (sic, with) approval of Board of Directors, therefore, the impugned order has been issued by an incompetent authority and against the transfer policy framed by the respondent No. 1-Bank. 25. The impugned transfer order has been challenged on the ground that the said order is contrary to the guidelines of Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India has issued communication dated 8.8.2014. The respondent No. 1 Bank has relied on the officers' Service Regulations-1982 as updated upto 31.8.2013 and submits that every officer of the Bank can be transferred to any office of the Bank or any branch or at any place in India. The respondent No. 1 Bank has relied on the officers' Service Regulations-1982 as updated upto 31.8.2013 and submits that every officer of the Bank can be transferred to any office of the Bank or any branch or at any place in India. It is to be noted that Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Government of India has issued circular in respect of transfer of female employees in public sector bank. 26. As per clause 20 of the said policy, the banks are obliged to follow the policy laid down in circular dated 8.8.2014 in respect of transfer of female employees and respondent No. 1 Bank is not permitted to take the shelter of Regulation, 1982 in respect of transfer of officers of the Bank at their own whim. In fact, being Scale-IV woman officer (the petitioner), respondent No. 1 Bank is obliged to follow the guidelines dated 8.8.2014. Thus, the order impugned is against the guidelines. 27. So far as ground No. 3 is concerned, in the present case, respondent No. 4 has not filed any separate reply denying the allegations specifically mentioned in the petition by the petitioner, therefore, all the allegations levelled against the respondent No. 4 by the petitioner appear to be true. 28. So far as ground No. 4 is concerned, the impugned transfer order was issued changing her status, where she has been transferred to a branch where Scale-I officer has to be posted as Branch Manager, whereas the petitioner is holding the post of Scale-IV officer. 29. To support the aforesaid contention, the respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioner has relied upon classification of branches dated 4.2.2017, is a guide note. 30. After perusal of the said note, it is clear that aforesaid classification has been approved by the Board on 27.9.2017 as the policy regarding classification of branches. The said document further shows that the aforesaid classification has been approved by Board in terms of regulation 6 (2) of Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Service Regulations. 31. 30. After perusal of the said note, it is clear that aforesaid classification has been approved by the Board on 27.9.2017 as the policy regarding classification of branches. The said document further shows that the aforesaid classification has been approved by Board in terms of regulation 6 (2) of Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Service Regulations. 31. The stand taken by the Bank in the reply that Annexure P/22 is only the guide note, cannot be accepted because once the classification has been approved by the Board in terms of the regulation of the Bank and the said regulations are framed in exercise of powers conferred by section 19 read with sub-section 2 of section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, then Annexure P/22 classification of branches is having the statutory force and cannot be merely said to be guide note and therefore, respondent No. 1 Bank cannot be permitted to change the status of petitioner under the garb of transfer showing it to be service and administrative exigencies. 32. The Bank has issued circular dated 4.10.2017 in respect of classification of branches as on 31.3.2017, which clearly discloses that Bank has notified five categories of branches, i.e., Small, Medium, Large, Very Large and Exceptionally Large, in which officers from Scale-I officer to Scale-V officer can be posted as a Branch Manager. 33. Thus, it is clear that only Scale-IV officer can be appointed in a Very Large Branch, however, by the impugned transfer order by the Bank, the petitioner has been transferred from Indore to Sarsawan, District Jabalpur, which is lowering the status of the petitioner, as in Sarsawan branch only Scale-I officer can be posted. 34. Normally, the transfer orders should not be required to be interfered by this Court. However, as held above, the impugned transfer order has been issued contrary to the statutory provisions as well as issued with an mala fide intention, therefore, it needs interference by this Court. 35. 34. Normally, the transfer orders should not be required to be interfered by this Court. However, as held above, the impugned transfer order has been issued contrary to the statutory provisions as well as issued with an mala fide intention, therefore, it needs interference by this Court. 35. In light of the aforesaid detailed discussions and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 5.12.2017 (Annexure P/19), 14.12.2017 (Annexure P/21) and 7.3.2018 (Annexure P/27) issued by the respective respondents transferring the petitioner from Indore to Sarsawan, District Jabalpur are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, in the interest of justice, the present petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed by quashing the orders dated 5.12.2017 (Annexure P/19), 14.12.2017 (Annexure P/21) and 7.3.2018 (Annexure P/27) issued by the respondents and the petitioner is permitted to continue in service at P. Y. Road, Branch Indore as Branch Manager, Scale-IV officer. 36. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed of accordingly.