IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11376 of 2009 RENU SINGH d/o Padmadeo Narain Singh, resident of A-7, Ashiana Nagar, Phase II, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District-Patna. Versus 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066, through the Chairman-cum- Managing Director. 2. General Manager, HRD, Punjab National Bank, 7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. 3. Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank, 7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. 4. Circle Head,Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, Patna. 5. Asstt. General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Audit Office, Chanakya Towers ‘R’ Block,Patna. 6. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Budha Colony, Patna. 7. Circle Head, Punjab National Bank,Circle Office, Muzaffarpur. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. K.D. Chatterjee, Dr.J.K.Verma, Amrendra Narayan and Sudhir Kumar Raj. For the Bank : M/s Sunil Kumar Singh and Rakesh Kumar Ranjan - - - --- 5 12.10.2009 Petitioner is a Senior Manager of MMG Scale III in Punjab National Bank. She has come to this Court against her transfer order. She has been transferred from Patna Circle to Muzaffarpur Circle. She states that ordinarily she is also aware that transfer being an incidence of service, cannot be objected to, but in the present case she alleges malafide and hostile discrimination . Here allegations of malafide are that her transfer had been actuated on basis of a complaint. This complaint inspite of repeated request were never disclosed to her. Here allegation with regard to hostile discrimination is that there are other senior employees of the Bank, who have been in one circle at Patna itself for a period, much longer than the petitioner, some for 25 years, yet they have not been touched nor are intended to be touched though on basis of the same Rules and Regulations ,she is 2 being transferred. Bank has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the stand was taken that the transfer is not because of any complaint but purely on administrative ground. Petitioner had been at Patna for over 20 years. As per Bank service rule, she could not stay in one Circle for more than 7 years. She can thus make no grievance. In the counter affidavit, Annexure B , has been appended, that is an internal letter from Human Resources Development Division, Head Office, New Delhi, dated 3.12.2008 to the Circle Office at Patna. That itself clearly discloses that indeed there was a complaint against the petitioner and the exercise started pursuant thereto. Regrettably, neither was the complaint discussed or disclosed in the counter affidavit nor any reference was at all made. At that stage, this Court, by a detailed order dated 7.20.2009 , directed the Bank to bring on record and produce the original file in relation to the complaint ,as referred in Annexure B and proceedings in relation thereto. The original records have been produced. These records clearly show that there were a spate of similar anonymous complaints to the Central Vigilance Organization of the Bank at New Delhi against the petitioner. A reference to the said complaints would show that the complaints were making an issue with regard to petitioner’s over stay in a particular circle for a longer period , which gives rise to corrupt practice though no specific incident with detail was mentioned. Having received these anonymous complaints from Patna circle, Human Resources Development Division, New Delhi , 3 the Bank advised Patna Circle to follow the Transfer Policy and if the petitioner had been in the Circle for more than seven years consistent with the policy, she must be transferred. Learned counsel for the Bank is candid enough to admit that , in fact , so far as corruption charges were concerned, Bank has chosen not to take any cognizance thereof but the fact remains that the whole process was initiated on basis of anonymous complaint , which was hyper critical to the petitioner and her long stay at Patna. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that these anonymous complaints are probably actuated by malice, may be by her colleagues itself , who were interested in getting her out of Patna because if it was a policy of the Bank not to permit a person in one circle for more than seven years then how senior officers were in Patna circle itself, who have been named in the rejoinder to the counter affidavit permitted to remain in Patna for over 20 years. If the Rules and Regulations are there and they are to apply to employees then they must be equally applied to all employees and if a particular employee is singularly picked up and the rule is made to apply to him but not to similarly situated other persons that is equally an example of hostile discrimination, if not malafide in law. Having considered the matter, in my view, notwithstanding the discrimination , as pleaded and established, the writ petition is not to succeed. It is not in dispute that as per Rules and Regulations of transfer , petitioner had over stayed at Patna. Courts can only implement rules and regulations as they are. Courts 4 cannot direct the authority to violate the Rules and Regulations. The transfer of the petitioner was not in violation of any Rule or Regulation, thus, her transfer cannot be interfered with specially when the Bank has taken a positive stand that so far as allegations of corrupt practice are concerned, they have not been taken cognizance thereof and no action is being taken on that ground. It is well established that Article 14 of the Constitution, which would apply in the present case clearly envisages that hostile discrimination is established when other equal are treated unequally and unequal are treated equally. Here the discrimination is write large as petitioner and several others named employees have all over stayed in the circle beyond the stipulated period but only petitioner has been picked up for transfer while others have been left untouched. It is in this perspective that this Court holds that the petitioner has been treated with hostile discrimination but yet as the transfer is not in contravention to the Rule, it is not being interfered with but the matter does not end here. The allegation of hostile discrimination is coupled with the allegation of malafide. In order to avoid malafide to be established, Bank, which is an instrumentality of the State, must act fairly and in accordance with the same Transfer Policy and apply the same with equal promptness to all others similarly situated named employees, who have over stayed at Patna circle. They must be transferred out of Patna immediately, if the stand of the Bank is bonafide and not mere camouflage to discriminate the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Bank undertakes on behalf of the Bank that suitable action in this regard against all such employees 5 named in para 15 of the rejoinder of the petitioner would be taken immediately by the administration. It is hoped that the Bank which professes to act in bonafide will live up to the said undertaking to establish its bonafide and not sleep in the matter once this writ petition is disposed of. However, considering the special facts and circumstances, as noted above, as an interregnum arrangement all that is the Court can do is to direct that till suitable action across the Board is taken, petitioner would be retained in Patna Circle in an appropriate position and would along with similarly situated officers be transferred in accordance with Transfer Policy to join her in new assignment in Muzaffarpur once orders are issued in respect of others . This Court is ordering so in view of the facts, noted above, so that it should not appear that petitioner has been discriminated in any manner and it should appear that the transfers are in routine course pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Bank. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)