Mithilesh Kumar v. The National Bank For Agriculture And Rural Development (Nabard) & Ors.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10915 of 2013 (13) dt.12-12-2013 2 petitioner is found entitled.” It appears that initially the order of transfer could not be brought on record, however, it has been brought on record vide Annexure 11 appended to the supplementary affidavit. This matter was heard earlier. Though the prayer for staying the order of transfer was refused but it was observed that the joining of the writ petitioner at the transferred post will be subject to the result of the writ petition. The petitioner claims that he has been transferred several times in violation of the guidelines framed for the relevant purpose by the competent authority as contained in Annexure 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Clause 2 of Annexure 2 disclosing the length of stay for Grade C employees. It is submitted that specially with respect to posting in domicile State the tenure would be of five years. The petitioner claims that he has been transferred in utter violation of the guidelines issued by the competent authority after about one year of his posting at Patna. That apart, learned counsel also submits that the guideline has been considered and followed with respect to all other employees, i.e., about 455 who have been transferred vide Annexure 12 except the petitioner who has been transferred within five years of his posting from Patna which is his Patna High Court CWJC No.10915 of 2013 (13) dt.12-12-2013 3 domicile State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the NABARD submits that the transfer policy reflected in Annexure 2 is to be followed but it is only directory and not mandatory as it has been stated in Annexure 2 itself that the Bank would reserve the right to transfer the officers even prior to completion of the length of stay at the existing centre at various the Bank account administrative convenience/exigencies. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the requirement in Bihar Regional Office of NABARD was only 18 Grade C Officers, against which there were 22 Officers in position. Accordingly, some of the officers were required to be transferred and as such, they were transferred during 2013-14 annual transfer and the petitioner was one of them. Thus, it is contended transfer, having been made under administrative exigency, does not require to be interfered with. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the list of transfer itself and submits that five „Grade C‟ employees were transferred from Patna. In case that has been done under the administrative exigency as there were four officers Patna High Court CWJC No.10915 of 2013 (13) dt.12-12-2013 4 posted at Patna in excess to the required as per the statement made in paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit, then surprisingly why and how five persons again could have been brought at Patna by the same transfer list. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a Single Bench decision of this Court rendered in Baldeo choudhary and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2000) 2 Bihar Law Journal Reports, 888] in support of his submission. Learned counsel for the respondent-NABARD submits that actually there was some typographical error in paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit as 21 persons were posted at Patna in place of 22. That makes the position of the respondent-Bank even worse. If there were three persons in excess then how and why five persons have been brought to Patna on transfer is totally unexplained. In above view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the order of transfer suffers from the vice of unfairness and arbitrariness as out of turn or pre-mature order of transfer must be supportable by some ground relatable to the interest of administration otherwise the action, if challenged, may be found to be unfair, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Patna High Court CWJC No.10915 of 2013 (13) dt.12-12-2013 5 Constitution of India. Since the respondents have not been able to make out any ground for the transfer of the petitioner in administrative exigency and there was any requirement at all for transferring the petitioner from Patna to Ahmedabad as exception to the transfer policy which is required to be followed by the respondent-Bank as contained in Annexure 2, this writ application succeeds and the order of transfer contained in Annexures 1 and 11, so far it concerns the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Let the petitioner be brought back to Patna with all transfer benefits within six weeks the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) SC/-