Amitabh Lall v. National Bank of Agriculture & Rural Development (NABARD) through its Chairman & Ors.

Annexure-1. The petitioner has challenged the transfer order on the ground of malafide and some other grounds as well.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Grade-A Officer in National Bank of Agriculture & Rural Development (in short ‘the NABARD’) on 23.10.1981. He was transferred and posted as 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.12747 of 2013 (7) dt.07-10-2013 DDM in September, 2010 at Samastipur. He was promoted as Grade-D Officer in the rank of DGM on 03.10.2011 and posted at Patna. He has been elected as President NABARD Officers Association, Bihar Unit, Patna. The Assistant General Manager, Bombay Head Office NABARD vide office order no.67/2013-14 dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure-11) communicated the decision of the Bank transferring 27 officers in the rank of Grade-D (DGM) to different places. The petitioner, whose name figured at serial no.18 in the list of transferees, was transferred to Bhubneshwar, Orissa. The petitioner filed a representation on 31.05.2013, which was rejected and communication vide letter dated 06.06.2013, as contained in Annexure-2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that all the employees save and except himself and one Rohit Mishra were transferred on completion of three years service at their respective stations. The petitioner has also placed on record Annexure-11 to show that many officers in his rank, who have put more than three years of service, have not been touched. He submits that he has been transferred, though he has not put in even two years at Patna. The petitioner submits that a PIL was filed by Non-Government Organization, Bihar namely Desh Ratan Foundation through its President Janardhan Prasad Singh for quashing the appointment of 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.12747 of 2013 (7) dt.07-10-2013 respondent no.2 in Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court unsuccessfully. The newspapers also reported some acts of omission and commission of respondent no.2. Learned counsel submits that as the writ petitioner was an NGO from Bihar, the respondent no.2, the Chairman, some how got the impression that the said PIL was filed at the instance of the present petitioner itself. According to learned counsel, the said misgivings about the petitioner led to his transfer. The petitioner submits that one Mithilesh Kumar, a grade ‘C’ officer, who was Secretary of the NABARD, Patna Unit was too transferred just after one year. The petitioner submits that said Mithilesh Kumar has hardly put in one year of service at Patna.

4. Learned counsel submits that one Rohit Mishra apart from petitioner was the only other grade ‘D’ officer, who was picked for transfer prematurely. A disciplinary proceeding was also going on against him. The petitioner submits that aforesaid Rohit Mishra filed writ application in Jammu & Kashmir High Court and his transfer was stayed vide order dated

03.06.2013 passed in S.W.P. No.1280 of 2013, C.M.A. No.1873 of 2013 (Annexure-9).

5. The petitioner submits that though there is no tenure regulations in respect of posting but the same yardstick 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.12747 of 2013 (7) dt.07-10-2013 should be adopted in case of other employees/staffs sought to be transferred. The Petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to show that he was transferred on administrative exigency. The petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous and in support of his submissions he has relied upon a Division Bench order of Calcutta High Court in case of Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. disposed of

29.07.2009.

6. Counsel for NABARD submits that transfer is an incidence of service and an administrative in nature and the court would be generally not interfering with such matter. The respondents deny that the petitioner has been transferred as a PIL was filed by a NGO of Bihar against respondent no.2 in Delhi High Court as well as in the Hon’ble Apex Court. Furthermore, the petitioner has not brought any material on record to show that respondent no.2 has got him transferred on account of any anguish. The respondent in support of their submissions have relied upon decision reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402, (2010) 13 SCC 406 and 2012(1) PLJR 33 SC para.18.

7. In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that NABARD has issued a circular dated 19.03.2013 indicating therein the transfer policy of officers for meeting its organizational 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.12747 of 2013 (7) dt.07-10-2013 requirement and to achieve the different objective. In paragraph 12, it is stated that Clause 6 of the aforesaid circular states that placement of senior officers in Grade D and above will continue to be governed by the organizational needs as also suitability of the officer for the post in question. Thus, counsel for the NABARD submits that transfer policy as applicable to Grade A, B and C will not be applicable to senior officers.

8. The petitioner finally submits that his father is 86 years of age and has undergone heart surgery and is bed ridden and as such he may be allowed to remain at Patna for further some time.

9. It is true that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a right to stay at a place indefinitely. A transfer order can be interfered, if it is accentuated with malafide or is one without jurisdiction or in violation of Rules. But at the same time, if the employer adopts a common measure while taking up issue of transfer the same should have general application. A departure can be made in administrative exigencies and in interest of the organization or own representation on grounds germane.

10. In the instant case, I find that the petitioner has also taken a plea that his father is 86 years old and has undergone heart surgery and is bed ridden, besides the plea that he has been 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.12747 of 2013 (7) dt.07-10-2013 transferred only after having putting in one year and nine months. In such circumstances, if the petitioner files a fresh representation before respondent no.1 for reconsideration of his transfer within two weeks, the same would be disposed of expeditiously preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of representation without prejudice.

11. With the aforesaid observation, this application is