1. Parties through their counsel.
2. The present Writ Appeal is arising out of the order dated 11/2/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9048/2018 (Mrs. Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab and Sind Bank).
3. Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was appointed on the post of Probationary Officer on 08/10/1998 in Junior Management Grade Scale - I (JMGS-I) and she was promoted to the post of General Manager, Scale IV in the services of the respondent Bank.
4. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Chief Manager (SMGS-IV) and was posted at Indore. The petitioner's husband who is serving the State Bank of India and was working as Chief Manager in the State Bank of India, Ahmedabad was transferred to Indore on 13/1/2017.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that she pointed out various lapses in the Branch in respect of the loan accounts. The Branch where the petitioner was posted ie., P. Y. Road Branch was categorised as High Risk/fraud prone Branch for many years and the contention of the petitioner is that on account of her hardwork, her dedication and continuous efforts the petitioner was able to reduce the serious irregularites (flash report) to just 4 points in June 2017. The contention of the petitioner is that she was working with sincerity and devotion, she lodged a complaint in respect of irregularites committed by respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 was instrumental in getting her transferred to some other place. The petitioner was initially transferred to Sarsawan, Distt. Jabalpur and the petitioner against her transfer order submitted a representation. She has informed vide communication dated 7/3/2018 that her transfer order has been passed keeping in view the administrative and service exigencies of the Bank and she was directed to join at the new place. The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 7/3/2018 to the Grievance Committee HRD (IR Cell) and filed a Writ Petition also before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank has categorically stated before this Court while arguing the present appeal that the petitioner can be transferred to Jabalpur and he has offered three places ie., the Branch at Jabalpur; the Branch at Delhi and one more Branch where the post is available which the petitioner is holding.
7. Learned Single Judge after taking into account the documents produced by the parties has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has been transferred with a mala-fide intention and has quashed the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 18 to 36 has held as under:
18. In the present case, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Probationary Officer on 08/10/1998 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 13/01/2017 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 22/09/2016 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 03/12/2016. 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 05/12/2017 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 06/03/2018, did not supply information as per points No. 2, 3 and 4 of RTI application but supplied to 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 04/06/2014, 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 in Scale-IV Officer and therefore, respondents showing the bonafide stated that the impugned transfer order has been issued in service and administrative exigencies. The Bank's Circular dated 04/10/2017 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 04/06/2014 reads as under:—
“20 - Time-lines for Transfer”—
In terms of MOG guidelines issued vide letter No. F. No. 5/5/2012-IR dated 03/05/2012 and 12/07/2012, 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 Director 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 approval of Board of Director, 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 08/08/2014. The respondent No. 1-Bank has relied on the Officers' Service Regulations-1982 as updated upto 31/08/2013 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 08/08/2014 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 (the petitioner), respondent No. 1-Bank is obliged to follow the guidelines dated 08/08/2014. 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 appears 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 04/02/2017, is a guide note.
30. After perusal of the said note, it is clear that aforesaid classification has been approved by the Board on 27/09/2017, 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 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.
32. The Bank has issued circular dated 04/10/2017 in respect of classification of Branches as on 31/03/2017, 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.
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 malafide 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 05/12/2017 (Annexure-P/19), 14/12/2017 (Annexure-P/21) and 07/03/2018 (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 05/12/2017 (Annexure-P/19), 14/12/2017 (Annexure-P/21) and 07/03/2018 (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.
8. This Court has carefully gone through the Writ Petition, the reply, the rejoinder, all the documents as well as all the grounds raised in the present Writ Appeal. The undisputed facts of the case reveals that the petitioner's spouse applied for transfer, who is holding the post of Chief Manager in the State Bank of India and was permitted to join on 13/1/2017, meaning thereby, both the husband and wife are posted at Indore and the aforesaid fact was very much within the knowledge of the respondent Bank. No cogent reason has been assigned in separating the husband and wife. In order to establish the fact that the transfer order has been passed on account of administrative exigencies, the respondents have not come forward with any reason of whatsoever kind. A lady employee who has categorically levelled serious allegations against respondent No. 4 and there is document on record (Annexure P/26) which was sent by her to the Executive Director of the Punjab & Sind Bank, has not been replied in respect of the categorical allegations made by the petitioner against Mr. Pankaj Trivedi. Even otherwise also, the documents produced before this Court establishes that it is the petitioner, because of whose sincere efforts, the Branch in respect of serious irregularites, was brought to four points in RBI in June 2017 (flash report). It was the petitioner who has brought to the notice of the higher authorities the procedural lapses, the irregularites committed by various officers in the matter of grant of loans.
9. The learned Single Judge, in the aforesaid circumstances, was justified in holding that the transfer order has been passed with mala-fide intentions and the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the transfer order. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in the present Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.