Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 *** Bhagirathi Patra, Aged about 46 years, Son of Sri Mayadhar Patra At present residing At Staff Quarter No.1, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Keonjhar Branch, At/P.O./P.S.: Keonjhar District: Keonjhar. … -VERSUS- Petitioner. 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Cuttack Division, Nuapatna, P.O./P.S./District: Cuttack Represented by Senior Divisional Manager 2. Senior Divisional Manager (The Competent Authority) Life Insurance Corporation of India & P & IR Department Divisional Office, Nuapatna, Cuttack 3. Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Keonjhar Branch P.O./P.S./District: Keonjhar … Opposite parties. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 1 of 40 Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate, M/s. Jagajiban Pradhan and Prajna Sarita Mohanty, Advocates For the Opposite parties : M/s. Ashok Kumar Mohanty and S.K. Sahoo, Advocates P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 12.07.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 06.08.2024 MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— J UDGMENT Assailing Order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Cuttack (Annexure-13) in pursuance of direction contained in Order dated 05.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No.32828 of 2022, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, transferred to Branch Office at Balasore from Branch Office at Keonjhar, vide Order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure-8) issued by Senior Divisional Manager, the instant writ petition has been filed invoking provisions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s): W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 2 of 40 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the opposite parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the impugned Order of transfer dated 23.05.2022 of opposite party No.1 under Annexure-8 to the extent of transfer of the petitioner and the Order dated 05.01.2023 under Annexure-13 be quashed; And the opposite parties be commanded to permit the petitioner to continue at his present place of posting i.e., Branch Office at Keonjhar; And may further be pleased to direct the opposite parties to release the salary of the petitioner with effect from September, 2022 onwards forthwith; And may further be pleased to direct LIC/NCSC to initiate proper enquiry into the case of harassment of the petitioner; And further be pleased to pass such further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems just, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. The facts as adumbrated in the writ petition reveal that the petitioner, posted at Branch Office, Keonjhar as Administrative Officer on 01.06.2019, has been transferred pursuant to ECZO Office Order ECZ/P&IR/PT/2022-23/PO-12 dated 06.05.2022 along with 38 other employees in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Assistant Administrative Officer. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 3 of 40
Legal Reasoning
2.1. Sri Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate would urge that on 14.08.2021, the Branch Manager called the petitioner to explain as to why he was not present in the office in connection with which the petitioner replied that his son was sick and there was no instruction to him to be present in the office on a holiday. Notwithstanding such explanation, the Branch Manager issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. However, on 20.08.2021, the Branch Manager changed the assignment of the petitioner to the Claims Department by an office order just before the commencement of the internal inspection of the Unit on 23.08.2021. Feeling humiliated thereby, the petitioner brought such fact to the notice of opposite party No.1 (Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cuttack Division, Nuapatna). 2.2. Sri Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that on 21.12.2021, there was an altercation with one Sri P.R. Bhuyan (a policy holder) with regard to delay in settlement of claim to which the Branch Manager (opposite party No.3) did not intervene and came to protect the employee (petitioner). In spite of request, the Branch Manager did not lodge FIR against Shri Bhuyan. Therefore, on 28.03.2022, the petitioner submitted his explanation and stated that he was finding it difficult to discharge his duty in the absence of protection granted by the Superior Officer. It is alleged W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 4 of 40 by the petitioner that as a consequence thereof, order of transfer dated 23.05.2022 was issued without adhering to the transfer policy. The relevant portion of transfer Order dated 23.05.2022 is extracted hereunder: “OFFICE ORDER Date:23.05.2022 Pursuant to ECZO Office Order Ref: ECZ/P&IR/PT-2022- 23/PO-12 dtd.06.05.2022 and transfer within Division , the cadre of following postings on Transfer Administrative Officer/Asst. Administrative Officer have been approved. in SR No. Sl. No. Name (Sri/Smt) Designation & present place of posting Mode New place of posting *** 20 *** *** 301194 B.PATRA *** AO, KEONJHAR BO *** TR *** AO, BALASORE BO The concerned officers are advised to get themselves relieved latest by 31.05.2022 to join their new place of posting. Promotion/transfer shall be effective from the date of taking over charge of his/her new assignments. The transfer grant/transfer benefit (applicable if any) shall be payable strictly according to CO Circular Ref: read with ZD/1022/ASP/2003 dated 02.06.2003 clarification transfer grant/L.141 dated 16.07.2012 and CO/PER, ER- A/065/2014, dated 19.04.2014. ref.: CO ERA/12-13/A letter The Officers are advised to fill up their handling/taking over reports online compulsorily.” W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 5 of 40 2.3. Challenging said Order, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.32828 of 2022, which got disposed of on 05.12.2022 with the following direction: “Considering the aforesaid submission, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the competent authority, i.e., Opposite Party No.1 by filing fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today taking all the grounds available him along with certified copy of this order and in the event such representation is filed, the opposite party No.1 shall do well to consider the same in the light of the guidelines of the Corporation and keeping in view the fact that the transfer order in respect of similar placed employees has been recalled by the authority, and shall take a decision on the same within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The decision so taken thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. Further, the order of transfer under Annexure-6 shall not be given effect to for a period of six weeks, if the petitioner has not been relieved in the meantime.” 2.4. Accordingly, on 10.12.2022, the petitioner submitted representation before the opposite party No.1, which has been disposed of without any intervention. Hence, finding no alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. 2.5. Sri Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate to buttress his argument that reason being heartbeat of every decision making process and reasons are links between the materials on which conclusions are based Page 6 of 40 W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 and the conclusions, no reason has been ascribed by the Competent Authority in his Order dated 05.01.2023 while rejecting the representation, placed reliance on Krushna Chandra Barik Vrs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Zonal Office, Patna, 2019 (I) OLR 916. 3. Per contra opposing the contentions and averments of the writ petition, Sri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties submitted that the petitioner being relieved from his duty on the basis of transfer Order on 23.05.2022 has not yet joined the transferee Office at Balasore. Having alleged to have approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on 22.12.2021 (even prior to order of transfer) the petitioner abstained himself from attending his official duties on the pretext of imaginary threat. 3.1. With regard to altercation with Sri P.R. Bhuyan, the Branch Manager on 05.01.2022 issued a letter to Sri P.R. Bhuyan asking him to reply within three days. On 06.01.2022, the Branch Manager issued letter to the petitioner who was Administrative Officer, HoD (Claims) to remain in seat and attend to official duties during office hours. To bring about normalcy in the office operations, the Branch Manager had formed an Enquiry Committee at Branch Office level to investigate into the complaint. However, Sri P.R. Bhuyan agreed to tender W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 7 of 40 unconditional apology for his alleged rough behaviour towards the petitioner. 3.2. Sri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocate for the opposite parties referred to the following paragraphs as affirmed in the counter affidavit in course of hearing in order to justify decision taken for transfer of the petitioner: “28. That, in response to paragraph 15, 16 & 17 it is submitted that accusations made therein is baseless and totally uncalled for and hence strongly denied. Opposite party-Corporation being the employer is in the best position to assess the abilities, competence and suitability of his employees and therefore has the prerogative to decide as to which employee of his is suitable for what job and duty and to post him in a place which according to him will serve his purpose best. It may kindly be appreciated that, if employers are called upon to justify each case of transfer of the thousands of employees who are transferred each year, it will hamper administration and create serious hindrance to operation of the organisations, as each and every employee who is transferred to a place not to his liking will then come up and challenge it on some grounds or other, then the administration will be busy in disposing of each such case rather than utilizing its time in more serious matters. However, it will be apt to mention here that, each case of representation received is judged on its own merit and is decided accordingly. 29. That, be that as it may, in so far as the case of Sri Naik (which was not there in the representation but W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 8 of 40 brought up now by the petitioner) is concerned, it may be noted that L.D. Naik A.O. who has been transferred to Barbil has not been relieved as he has represented citing the ill health of his spouse and family problem on dated 23.11.2022. It is reiterated that each case is dealt with in consideration of different circumstances keeping in view the interest of the employee in consonance with corporation interest. In so far as petitioner’s case is concerned, a perusal of the order disposing of his representation would reveal that petitioner’s representation has been dealt with elaborately keeping in view relevant rules and circulars and the circumstance. the entirety of 30. That, content of paragraph 18 is strongly denied. Opposite parties specifically assert that their action is in conformity with the relevant rules, and the various circulars issued under it. 31. That, for better appreciation of their submissions the relevant provisions of law are extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience: Section 23 of the L.I.C. Act, 1956: 23. Staff of the Corporation.— (1) For the purpose of enabling it to discharge its functions under this Act, the Corporation may employ such number of persons as it thinks fit. (2) Every person employed by the Corporation or whose services have been transferred to the Corporation under this Act, shall be liable to serve anywhere in India. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 9 of 40 Relevant Rules of LIC of India (Staff) Rules, 1960: 80. Transfers.— The competent authority may transfer an employee from one department to another in the same office or from one office of the Corporation to another office. 72. Joining Time: How Calculated.— (1) Not more than one day is allowed to an employee in order to join a new post when the appointment to such post does not necessarily involve a change of residence from one station to another. A holiday counts as a day for the purpose of this sub-regulation. (2) For transfers involving change of station, six days are allowed for preparation and, in addition, a period to cover the actual journey calculated as follows:*** 73. Joining Time cannot be claimed as a matter of right.— Joining time cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It may be curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority. Explanation.— the time joining is curtailed the Where competent authority may grant special leave, not exceeding time curtailed, to enable an employee to go back to his previous place of duty for winding up his the period of joining W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 10 of 40 establishment or for any other connected purpose. 74. Overstayal after joining time.— An employee who does not join his post within the joining time allowed to him, except under circumstances beyond his control, shall not be entitled to any pay or leave salary after the end of the joining time. Willful absence from duty after the expiry of joining time may be treated as a breach of these Regulations for the purpose of Regulation 39. Clause 8 of Implementation of LIC of India Transfer and Mobility: (Class-I Officers), Instructions, 2016: 8) Relieving Instructions.— the Instructions regarding relief etc. shall be issued by the Competent Authority at the time of issuing itself clearly transfer order mentioning therein that order shall be complied within the stipulated time. If any officer has not handed over charge of the present assignment within the stipulated time mentioned in the Office Order then he/she shall be deemed to be relieved from the said position for all purpose. (a) An employee who is relieved by the transferor office in order to enable him to join the transferee office, shall be treated for all purpose as an employee of the transferee office. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 11 of 40 (b) (c) If the employee under orders of transfer wishes to avail of leave of any kind, he shall apply for leave to the transferee office. The In-charge of transferee office may consider the applications for leave on the merits of each case as per rules. In no case, the transferor office shall grant any kind of leave to the employee after he is relieved. If the employee under orders of transfer is relieved after 20th of any month, his salary for that month shall be paid by the transferor office. However, if he is relieved on or before 20th of any month, salary for that month shall be paid by the transferee office. (d) The personal and leave files and also Transfer Form Certificate relating to the employee shall be sent, wherever applicable, transferee office immediately after relieve of the employee. the to (e) The record of the Officer in the IT system shall be updated accordingly. 32. That, as it can be seen from a cursory look at the provisions as extracted hereinabove, the opposite parties have acted in conformity of the relevant law, however, the petitioner has provisions of blatantly flouted express conditions of his service as contained in the statute in a display of gross defiance to the rule of law. 33. That, in response to content of paragraph 19 it is submitted that the same is denied in whole. As a W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 12 of 40 perusal of the relevant provisions of law extracted above would show, it is rather the petitioner who has continued to be defiant of the orders issued, and in gross violation of the rules governing the field still remains absent from ignore his communications in that regard issued to him from time to time. continues duties and to letters 34. That, the petitioner as mentioned above still has not joined Balasore Branch where he was instructed to join with effect from 27.06.2022. The Senior Branch Manager of LIC of India, Balasore Branch where he has been transferred has the petitioner on issued six to 05.07.2022, 26.07.2022, 11.07.2022, 10.08.2022, 05.09.2022 & 30.09.2022 to join his duty, however the petitioner neither joined his transferee office nor applied for any leave there, as a result of which the authorities in terms of Rule 74 have treated the period of absence as unauthorized and have stopped paying salary to the petitioner with effect from September, 2022 applying the Principle of No Work No Pay. LIC of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 states: 30. Employees not to be Absent from Duty without permission or be Late in Attendance.— (1) An employee shall not absent himself from his duties without having obtained the permission of the competent authority, nor shall he absent himself in case of sickness or accident without W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 13 of 40 submitting a medical certificate satisfactory to the competent authority. Provided that in case of unforeseen emergency an employee may be allowed to avail of one day’s casual leave without prior sanction, subject to the condition that the competent authority the is promptly advised circumstances in which prior sanction could not be obtained. of Provided further that in the case of temporary indisposition the production of a medical certificate may, at the absolute discretion of the competent authority, be dispensed with. *(2) An employee who absents himself from duty without leave or overstays his leave shall not be entitled to draw any pay and allowances during such absence or overstayal, and shall further be liable to such disciplinary measures as the competent authority may deem necessary. the that Provided, however, competent authority may treat such period of absence or overstayal, if not followed by termination of service, as period spent on privilege, sick, the special, or extraordinary employee shall not be entitled as of right to such treatment. leave, but Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 65 the competent authority may treat such absence or overstayal as period spent on extraordinary leave irrespective of W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 14 of 40 whether the employee has any other leave to his credit or not.
Decision
35. That, on the basis of submissions made above, it is submitted that, there is no illegality in the action of the opposite parties, and on the contrary the petitioner has been defiant in his action and is bent upon to avoid his transfer at any cost and therefore this Hon’ble Court concealing has approached relevant facts, with an intent to fraudulently obtain an order, and as such the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 36. That, opposite parties respectfully submit that, there being no contravention of any legal provision while issuing the order of transfer, the present writ application is liable to be dismissed. 37. That, all the assertions made in the writ petition except to the extent specifically admitted in above paragraphs, may be deemed to have been denied.” 3.3. By way of an affidavit dated 22.09.2023 pursuant to the direction of this Court vide Order dated 29.08.2023, Sri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that as per transfer order dated 23.05.2022, 39 officers including the petitioner were transferred. There was sufficient reason for transfer as the petitioner remained absent from office at Keonjhar on account of threat to life perception. No mala fide could be attributed to the Branch Manager nor any of the officers of the Organisation, as such action has been taken in a chain of transfers of Administrative Officers. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 15 of 40 3.4. Sri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocate for the opposite parties submitted that the Senior Divisional Manager (Competent Authority) pursuant to direction of this Court vide Order dated 05.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.32828 of 2022 disposed of the representation of the petitioner with regard to his order of transfer from Branch Office at Keonjhar to Branch Office at Balasore. 4. Pleadings being completed and exchanged between the counsel for respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4.1. Pleadings, being completed, on the consent of counsel for both the sides, heard Sri Samir Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties on 12.07.2024 finally and the matter stood reserved for preparation and delivery of Judgment. 5. Perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it appears the petitioner has the following grievance before the Senior Divisional Manager: “Dear Sir, Re: Mental harassment by branch in-charge. I Sri Bhagirathi Patra, SRNO-301194, working as administrative officer in Kendujhar branch office, submit my grievance before you. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 16 of 40 That, on 14th August-2021 (Holiday), our branch manager Sri N. Mallick telephoned me at around 1.50 p.m. and asked me why I was not present in office. I told him that opening office was not discussed the previous day. I was fully occupied as my son was running a fever and I could not come. While I was trying to explain it to him, he was reluctant to listen to anything and rudely told me to that he would issue a show cause letter to me and demanded an explanation in writing why I was not present in office. That, from 16th onwards, he did not bother to discuss this issue in office and suddenly on 20th August, changed me to claims department by an office order just before start of internal inspection of our unit on 23rd August. After receiving the order, I asked him for the show cause letter. He said this is what I got, and he did not have time for any discussion. That, for last two years I have been shouldering the responsibilities of two departments and working as HOD (NB & OS). I believe it is customary to have a proper discussion before change of department with concerned HODs. I was not part of any such discussion. Clearly it was done just to prove that he has authority and can do whatever he wanted. Sir, I fail to understand how I am supposed to be in office on holidays without prior instruction and be castigated for the same. Is this in line with our corporation HRD policy. This act by branch head is a clear attempt to belittle my work, make me feel worthless and unwanted in office. I am deeply traumatized by this act of discrimination and humiliation. It is affecting my physical and mental well- being. Needless to say that it is affecting my abilities to concentrate on my work and my personal life. I wonder what offence I committed to be treated in such a manner. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 17 of 40 Sir it is the branch manger’s responsibility to create a conducive atmosphere in office so that every employee can give their best output. Our Corporation emphasizes a lot on being sensistive and empathetic to customers. I, being an internal customer, don’t I deserve a little respect, a little appreciation from branch head. Sir, how can I discharge my these circumstances. How can I do justice to hundreds of customers I face every day. peacefully duties under It is not possible on my part to put into words what I am going through right now. Therefore, I am writing to you and request your good self to consider my plight and do whatever is thought appropriate by you.” 5.1. Again on 27.12.2021, the following allegation has been submitted to the Branch Manager by the petitioner: “Dear Sir, Re: Misconduct and threatening by Sri P.R. Bhuyan. That, on 21/12/2021, Sri Bhuyan came to my seat where I and our daily wager Sri Maheswar Behera (Mantu) were seated. His behaviour was very rough and ungentlemanly from the very beginning. Very impolitely he asked Many why one of his MC was not settled. I tried to explain it to him that Indemnity bond cases take time for verification and approval from competent authority is required for payment. He was not listening to anything. Then I told him to go to the branch manager which he refused and kept on shouting and lifted official papers lying on my table threw them angrily demanding stoppage of all claims work until his claim was settled. When I objected to this behavior he threatened me to hit me once I step out of the office premises. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 18 of 40 Several time I told him to go to branch manager for any grievance but he chose to create nuisance and disrupt office work instead. Such language and behavior without any provocation implies that his action was premeditated. He would have hit me in office if our security Mr Tudu had not intervened. Further, Sir Bhuyan is neither an agent nor a customer. In view of this his behavior is tantamount to hooliganism and obstruction of office work. I requested you to discuss the matter the same day but you were not available. You were not available for the next couple of days. Then on 24/12/21, when we finally met I asked you to lodge an FIR against him to which you did not agree. So I request you to look into the matter and take necessary action your capacity as branch manager. You are also requested to preserve CCTV footage and other evidence for future reference. In the meantime if anything untoward happens to me or my family, Sri Bhuyan and office will be held responsible for this.” 5.2. The record transpires that the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Cuttack on 08.02.2022 (Annexure-3) intimated the petitioner that “you are not sitting in your seat and not doing any official work from 22.12.2021 and are leaving the office after marking daily concurrencia without permission of Brach in-charge.” The petitioner was instructed by the said letter under Annexure-3 that “not attending to your assigned jobs on the reported ground of being threatened (not safe in the Office), and not obeying the advice of Branch-in-charge is unreasonable and not at all acceptable. Your actions not only hamper the W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 19 of 40 functioning of the Claims Department but also are making valued policyholders suffer heavily.” 5.3. On 09.03.2022 the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Cuttack made further communication to the petitioner, copy of which is at Annexure-6 which depicts as follows: “*** *** *** to their report An Internal Committee was formed by an order dated 07.01.2022 by the Branch Manager who would consult all the parties, eye witnesses, CCTV footage and submit their report on the basis of your grievance application & advised to report by 19.01.2022. The Committee has the Branch Manager on submitted 19.01.2022. As per the report the reaction on the part of Mr.Bhuyan was sudden and spontaneous outburst of accumulated dissatisfaction over nonpayment of claim against the policy concerned and his intense reaction may not be presumed to have been premeditated. But since behavior shown by him was objectionable and offending, Committee suggested that, Sri Bhuyan must be asked to tender an apology for the same & in the broader interest of Corporation the matter may be deemed closed. Branch Manager wrote a letter to you in reply to your mail dated 29.12.2021 mentioning the inference of the Internal Committee which was formed on the BMC decision held on 05.01.2022, requesting you again to attend the Official work immediately as HOD(Claims) for SB & Maturity. The Branch Manager intimated P&IR Deptt on 01.02.2022 that You refused to accept his letter related to inference of the committee on 27.01.2022 for which the same was mailed to you on 28.01.2022. Branch Manager also mentioned W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 20 of 40 that you denied attending the office but you have been marking your presence every day on concurrencia module & not attending official work from 22.12.2021. Smt Ratnaprava Das, W/O Sri Suresh Chandra Das (Advocate) At-Thakur patna, PO- Banki, Keonjhar- 758002 aged about 64 years, has also submitted her complaint letter on 28.12.2021 for non disposal of her Maturity claim on due date, i.e. on 28.09.2021 although she submitted all the requirements before date by hand which were misplaced in the Deptt. On her personal enquiry after over one month Indemnity Bond and KYC documents were asked for, which were also submitted by her to you as HOD (Claims) on 14.12.2021. Since her Maturity Claim was not settled, she had demanded delayed Interest. On her enquiry about her Maturity Claim she had reported that she was shocked on your rude behaviour and discouraging reply. She requested Branch Manager for early settlement of her Maturity Claim else she will take shelter of Law. Sri Bhuyan was also enquiring about the claim of the same policy on 21.12.2021 as a representative of Smt. Ratnaprava Das, However the Claim of the Policy has been settled on 31.12.2021 as per mail of the BO on 22.02.2022. Further, Branch In-charge had asked for explanation to Mr.Bhuyan vide his letter dated 05.01.2022 within three days. He has replied on 07.01.2022 blaming your attitude and high handedness & LIC as a whole for such treatment towards Customers & losing faith on such a reputed Commercial Organization. He has also denied the charges made by you & mentioned the allegations leveled against him is false and fabricated in his reply letter to Branch Manager dated 07.02.2022 on this incidence. Branch Manager has reported that, Mr. Bhuyan was made convinced to make a verbal apology for betterment Page 21 of 40 W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 the employees although he of relationship within mentioned that he has no reason to apologize as per his statement, It appears that, you have shown no interest for an amicable settlement of the issues.” 5.4. However, on 28.03.2022 the petitioner appears to have sent a letter to the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Cuttack Division, Cuttack, copy of which is placed at Annexure-7, wherein paragraphs 4 and 5 read as follows: “*** *** *** 4. 5. In Your letter you have justified actions of everyone and tried to put the entire blame on me. You have also mentioned about some complaints against me. There is one nodal officer for customer complaints at branch office, besides branch manager is the CRM at branch level and there is CRM department at division besides online platform. Why was I not informed about any such complaints then? It is obvious that management is fabricating false evidence to set me up just because I dared to complain. In my grievance I pleaded before you about mental health issues, how it is affecting my work and famıly life. You have shown least concern for this. You have also justified violence in office, harassment by branch manager. Being divisional head, I was expecting you to show highest standards of neutrality and impersonality. But you have blindly supported the action of branch manager/others based on your personal relationship in complete disregard of facts. I seriously doubt there is some W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 22 of 40 unethical understanding between you and branch manager. *** *** *** From the above, it is very clear how sensitive our management is to complaints/grievances. This is what we learn from higher management. I have patiently waited for six months, going through all the harassment and suffering to get justice. What I get in return-further harassment, conspiracy to malign me, project me as a troublemaker and sabotage my career. Now that you have failed to give me any sort of relief, I will take the matter to National Commission for Scheduled Castes for justice.” 5.5. In view of internal strained attitudes prevailing in the Branch Office at Keonjhar, the case of the petitioner along with 38 other officers of different branches has been considered for transfer which got approved in the ECZO vide Office Order dated 23.05.2022, which is impugned by the petitioner vide Annexure-8. 5.6. It is manifest from the documents and culled out from the allegations made by the present petitioner read with communication of the opposite parties that prior to issuance of transfer Order dated 23.05.2022, which is chain of transfers effective on pan-India basis, the petitioner was not attending to his duties since 22.12.2021 at Branch Office, Keonjhar despite intimations sent to him. As a result of which work W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 23 of 40 relating to Claim Servicing, which is an important Department in the Organization, has been seriously hampered. This led to wide customer dissatisfaction due to delay in processing of claims. It is apparent from the Order dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure-13) of the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Cuttack that as per Rule 20 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 “unless in any case it be distinctly provided, the whole time of an employee shall be at the disposal of the Corporation and he shall serve the Corporation in its business in such capacity and at such places, as he may, from time to time, be directed.” Further Rule 80 ibid. envisages that the Competent Authority may transfer an employee from one department to another or from one Office of the Corporation to another Office. 5.7. This Court finds force in the contention of Sri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties that while effecting transfer vide Order dated 23.05.2022 at Annexure-8, the transfer and mobility policy was taken into account and it is also aptly submitted by him that the administrative instruction does not call for any legally enforceable right on the employee. It is found that the transfers of 39 officers including the petitioner have been made considering the factual aspects in its right perspective. W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 24 of 40 5.8. It may be worthwhile to refer to Dr. Krishna Chandra Dubey Vrs. Union of India & others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52249 of 2000, disposed of by Judgemnt dated 05.09.2005 [Neutral Citation: 2005:AHC:705-DB = indiankanoon.org/doc/1544968/], wherein the aforesaid submission of Sri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, learned Advocate for the opposite parties is found countenanced. Relevant portion of the said judgment of Allahabad High Court is quoted hereunder: “15. Thus, it is clear that the transfer policy does not create any legal right in favour of the employee. It is settled law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by an employee that there is a breach of a statutory duty on the part of the employer. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he/ she has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction. (Vide Calcutta Gas Company (Propriety) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276; State of Kerala Vs. Smt. A. Lakshmi Kutty, AIR 1987 SC 331; State of Kerala Vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 49; Krishan Lal Vs. State of J & K, (1994) 4 SCC 422; State Bank of Patiala & Ors. Vs. S.K. Sharma, AIR Page 25 of 40 W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 16. 17. 1996 SC 1669; Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1996 SC 2736; Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 3104; Utkal University Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 943; State of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2900; and Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 1561. In Shilpi Bose Vrs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 = (1991) Supp (2) SCC 659, the Apex Court has held the transfer/posting that order of competent authority did not violate any of her legal right.’ The employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right for his/her posting at a particular place. ‘issued by In Gujarat Electricity Board Vrs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 = (1989) 2 SCR 357, the Apex Court in crystal clear words observed that an employee fails to join at the transferred place, he exposes himself to the disciplinary proceedings for disobedience of the order. The employee cannot avoid the compliance of the transfer order. In Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. Vrs. Workman, AIR 2001 SC 436, a similar view has been reiterated and it has been held therein that refusal to report for duty upon transfer amounts to misconduct. Even if the transfer order is bad for some reason, the employee must ensure compliance of the order first and then raise the issue with the employer for redressal of his grievance. 18. In State of U.P. Vrs. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 26 of 40 ‘It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order if transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or their higher servant authorities the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.’ redress but cannot have concerned for to approach transgression even in W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2023 Page 27 of 40 19. Similar view has been reiterated