Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4467 of 2013 ====================================================== Shivendra Kumar Singh, S/O late Ram Chandra Singh, resident of Village and P.O- Bangara, Nizamat, P.S- Sahebanj, District- Muzaffarpur, Presently Posted as Assistant in Sahebganj Brancha Of Muzaffarpur, Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd., Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Muzaffarpur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hospital Road, Muzaffarpur, through the Managing Director. 2. The Managing Director, Muzaffarpur Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd., Hospital Road, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Branch Incharge, Sahebganj Branch, Muzaffarpur Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd., Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur. ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. B. K.Manglam, Advocate Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nitiranjan Jha, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA C.A.V. ORDER 8 24-07-2013 The petitioner, an employee of The Muzaffarpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for brevity the respondent Bank), has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 16.2.2013 (Annexure-2) issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Bank, whereby he has been transferred from Sahebganj Branch and has been posted at the Headquarter of the 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.4467 of 2013 (8) dt.24-07-2013 2 / 6 respondent Bank at Muzaffarpur on administrative ground and out of expediency of the respondent Bank. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there are no justifiable grounds for transferring the petitioner from sahebganj Branch to the Headquarter of the respondent Bank at Muzaffarpur on administrative ground, as pendency of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner cannot be a valid ground for his transfer. According to him, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is pending since 1994, and further it has been stayed by an order dated 13.8.2012 (Annexure-3) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14536 of 2012 by a Bench of this Court and the matter is till pending. Therefore, according to him, even if the petitioner joins at the Headquarter, the respondent Bank cannot proceed with that departmental proceeding. 3. It was next contended that the petitioner is at the verge of superannuation, therefore, at the fag end of his service career he should be allowed to remain at the place of his choice. It was further contended that the state of Bihar has pervasive control over the respondent Bank, hence it is an instrumentality of the State under the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. In support of his above contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid