IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5304 of 2008 Between: Mr. M.V.S.N. Murthy S/o. Late Sri Narsinga Rao D.No. 39-8-11/8, Jeetu Apartments, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 UCO Bank, Head Office, 12, Old Court House Street, Calcutta, Rep. by its General Manager (P) 2 UCO Bank, AP-Zone Office, Banjara Hills, Road No. 10 Hyderabad, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager. 3 UCO Bank, Visakhaptnam Main Branch, Visakhapatnam, Rep. bys its Senior Manager. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the transfer of the petitioner from Visakhapatnam main branch to Zonal Office Trivendrum Zone vide Order Ref.No. RMH/SF/1270/1816/2007- 08 dt. 16-1-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to transfer policy 1997 (ii) declare the proceedings No. ZM11/SF/1270/2000/2007-08 dt. 18-2- 2008 as illegal, and unjust and consequently set aside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.K.UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.AJAYAKUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Manager in UCO Bank. Through order, dated 16.01.2008, the head office of the bank transferred the petitioner from main branch at Visakhapatnam, to zonal office at Trivandrum. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1242 of 2008 aggrieved by the order of transfer. The writ petition was dismissed on 28.01.2008, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the head office, pointing out his grievance. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation on 29.01.2008, raising certain grounds. Placing reliance upon the various clauses in the transfer policy of the bank, through order, dated 18.02.2008, the head office of the bank, refused to accede to the request of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner, vide letter, dated 18.02.2008, addressed by the Assistant General Manager. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds and that no interference is warranted. Smt.K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned transfer is totally opposed to the transfer policy prescribed by the bank itself and that the petitioner was transferred before completion of the tenure mentioned in clause 12, almost as a punitive measure. She further contends that the impugned order does not contain any reasons, nor does it advert to any of the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in his representation. Sri V.Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that transfer is an incidence of service and the petitioner cannot refuse to join at the transferred place. He contends that the respondents have examined the representation of the petitioner and refused to accede to his request, on finding that there are no merits. W.P.No.1242 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was dismissed, leaving it open to him to approach the head office of the bank with proper representation. Accordingly, a representation was made on 29.01.2008. Placing reliance upon several clauses in the transfer policy, it was urged by the petitioner that he has functioned as Assistant Chief Officer (Inspection and Vigilance), till August, 2006, and as a consequence thereof, he is entitled to function against a stationary post, for a period of three years. The respondent did not advert to this ground, at all, in the impugned order. Though it is always open to the employer to transfer its employees, according to administrative convenience, it cannot ignore the transfer policy, wherever it is in force. Notwithstanding the fact that the transfer policy itself is a set of guidelines, any deviation must be on the basis of valid reasons. In the absence of any reasons, particularly when specific provisions of the transfer policy are cited and pleaded, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is set aside. It is left open to the respondents to pass fresh orders specifically dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be continued in the present station. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.02.05.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}