IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.622 of 2011 In (MJC 47/2010) 01. The State Bank Of India, through the Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, Patna 02. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1 03. Assistant General Manager, Human Resources, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 04. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region- V, Administrative Office, J.C. Road, Patna 05. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region- I, Administrative Office, J.C. Road, Patna 06. Assistant General Manager, Administration, State Bank of India, Administrative Office, J.C. Road, Patna …. Contemnors-Appellants Versus Chandra Bhushan Kumar, S/o Shri Jagat Narain Singh, Resident of Mohalla, Pirmuhani (Near Water Tower), Police Station-Gandhi Maidan, Town & District-Patna ….. Petitioner-Respondent For the appellant Bank:- Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate ---------------------------------- 04. 20.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. In spite of valid service of notice, the respondent, who was petitioner of Contempt Application bearing M.J.C. No. 47 of 2010 has not chosen to appear. The aforesaid Contempt Application has been disposed off by the order under Appeal dated 8th March, 2011. Paragraph-10 of that order contains the operative part whereby direction has been issued to the General Manager of the Bank to take disciplinary action against the officers who 2 passed order dated 19.01.2010 to effect transfer of certain employees out of list of 115 persons, who were being considered for transfer in accordance with the transfer policy of the Bank. There is further direction to launch prosecution against the concerned officers for violating a statement an oath before the High Court that they would be implementing the transfer policy in respect of remaining persons i.e. 115 persons whose names were mentioned in a list as per statement made in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 9814 of 2009. The basis for the aforesaid order and direction is mentioned in paragraphs- 8 and 9 and hence, they are extracted hereinbelow:- “8. Counsel for the Bank has not disputed the aforesaid statement he only submits that on account of the subsequent appointment made for the Rural Branches the earlier transfer order about which statement was made in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit was changed. Learned counsel candidly submitted that the Bank should have sought permission from this Court before passing the order dated 19.01.2010 contrary to their statement made in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit.” “9. Affidavit filed before this Court is solemn promise made by the authorities before this Court. Relying on the statement made in the affidavit orders are passed by this Court. After passing of the orders of the High Court 3 if the statement made in the affidavit is violated then such violation cannot be condoned on the ground of subsequent change in circumstances of persons having been appointed in the service of the Bank, if that was so the authorities of the Bank should have invited the attention of the High court to such subsequent happening. Without such information to the High Court the Assistant General Manager Administration proceeded to pass order dated 19.01.2010 which is contrary to the oath taken by another Assistant General Manager in connection with C.W.J.C. No. 618 of 2008.” Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order of the Writ Court dated 29.10.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 9814 of 2009 which is allegedly violated leading to M.J.C. No. 47 of 2010 was challenged by the appellants by preferring L.P.A. No. 1622 of 2009 which was disposed off by order dated 24.12.2009. Paragraphs- 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Memo of Appeal of L.P.A. No. 1622 of 2009 have been extracted in paragraph-13 of the Memo of the present Appeal and the order of the Division Bench has been annexed as Annexure-3. The Division Bench extracted the operative part of the order dated 29th October, 2009 and recorded its opinion that the learned Single Judge has actually not issued any command for posting and, therefore, no interference was called for. 4 The said order finds a reference in paragraph-3 of the order under Appeal but the wordings of the actual order and the part which is noted in paragraph-3 differ slightly. In our considered view, once the Division Bench held that actually the learned Single Judge has not issued any command for posting, there could be no question of any violation of the order dated 29.10.2009 at the hands of the appellants or other officers of the Bank. The appellants had explained in detail, on the basis of the transfer policy as to why some persons had to be left out of the list of 115 persons and it must be presumed that the Division Bench passed the order in L.P.A. annexed as Annexure-3 after hearing all the submissions. In such circumstances, in our view, it cannot be held that the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank in C.W.J.C. No. 618 of 2008 and the statements made in paragraph-13 of counter affidavit therein would amount to a solemn or binding promise by the authorities of the Bank. Unless the stand of the Bank in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit was noted by the Writ Court leading to specific directions, there was no compulsion upon the authorities of the Bank to transfer all the 115 5 persons in the list regardless of their transfer policy and other relevant considerations. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, we find merit in this Appeal. The order under Appeal is set aside. The Appeal is allowed. P.K. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)