IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7413 of 2011 Sri Prakash Singh, son of Late Raj Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-Narharpur, Police Station- Basantpur, District-Siwan …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Managing Director,Land Development Bank Ltd. Budh Marg, Patna-1. 2. The Area Manager, Chapra Land Development Bank Ltd. 3. The Statistical Officer, Land Development Bank, Budh Marg, Patna-1. ………….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner; Mr. B.K.Singh “Chouhan”, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Pd. Choudhary, Advocate. ----------- 3. 16.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Land Development Bank. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order of transfer dated 10.12.2010 by which he has been transferred from Mirganj in Gopalganj District to Arwal. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the course of a little over three and a half years he has been served four transfer orders which according to learned counsel for the petitioner on the face of it speaks about the oblique and mala fide intention of the respondent authorities of the Land Development Bank. In support of the same learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Apex 2 Court in the case of B.Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others: AIR 1986 SC 1955, in para-5 of which it has been held as follows:- “It is no doubt true that if the power of transfer is abused, the exercise of the power is vitiated. But it is one thing to say that an order of transfer which is not made in public interest but for collateral purposes and with oblique motives is vitiated by abuse of powers, and an altogether different thing to say that such an order per se made in the exigencies of service varies any condition of service, express or implied, to the disadvantage of the concerned Government servant. The petitioner who appeared in person placed reliance, as he did in the High Court, on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Seshrao Nagorao umap V. State of Maharashtra, (1985) 2 Lab LJ 73. We do not see how the decision can be of any avail to the question at issue. The learned Judges were dealing with a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by which a Medical Officer challenged his order of transfer on the ground that it was not only mala fide but was issued in colourable exercise of power and therefore wholly illegal and void. It was contended by the petitioner that he was being transferred contrary to the Government policy with a view to accommodate one Dr. R.P. Patil because of the political influence he wielded. In allowing the writ petition, the learned Judges observed that it was no doubt true that the Government has power to transfer its employees employed in a transferable post but this power has to be exercised bona fide to meet the exigencies of the administration. If the power is exercised mala fide, then obviously the order of transfer is liable to be struck down. They relied on the observations made by this Court in E.P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 2 SCR 348: (AIR 1974 SC 555) for the 3 positivistic view that `equality is antithetic to arbitrariness’ and held that the observations equally apply to the policy regarding the transfer of public servants. It was observed: “It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. However this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers, cannot but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose than is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration that even administrative actions should be just and fair.” The observation that transfer is also an implied condition of service is just an observation in passing. It certainly cannot be relied upon in support of the contention that an order of transfer ipso facto varies to the disadvantage of a Government servant, any of his conditions of service making the impugned order appealable under R. 19(1)(a) of the Rules. 4 It is also the contention of learned counsel that other persons, namely, Gajendra Nath Singh and Sadhu Sharan Singh have been allowed to remain as Branch Managers at Mairwa and Ekma since last 20 years whereas the petitioner is being harassed by frequent transfers as against the normal period of posting for a period of three years. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the first transfer of the petitioner made on 14.5.2007 was on the basis of representation dated 31.3.2007 of the petitioner himself. After applauding his own performance the petitioner had made a prayer that he is entitled to be transferred to Maharajganj Branch or any Branch in Gopalganj District. It is submitted that the first transfer of the petitioner which was made to Mashrakh was in Saran District at a place quite close to Gopalganj District. The second transfer made on 26.2.2008 was from Mashrakh to Chhapra which is the headquarters of Saran District again quite close to Gopalganj District and the third transfer made on 16.1.2009 was from Chhapra to Mirganj which is in Gopalganj District. Thus, it is submitted that all the three transfers were in fact not mala fide but favourable 5 orders passed on the basis of representation made by the petitioner for transfer to Gopalganj District which he wanted by his representation dated 31.3.2007. It is further submitted that the present transfer order dated 10.12.2010 covers as many as 22 Branch Managers and similarly ranked employees of the Bank and has been made in administrative exigencies. The impugned order itself states that the transfer was made considering the importance of recovery of debt. Moreover, the impugned office order is also a complete answer to the submission of the petitioner that Gajendra Nath Singh and Sadhu Sharan Singh are being favoured by the respondents whereas they have also been transferred from Mairwa in the district of Siwan to Warisaliganj in Nawadah district and Ekma in Saran District to Sherghati in Gaya District which transfers are not less distant as that of the petitioner. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that even the present transfer order of the petitioner is after nearly two years from his last transfer and for the said reason it cannot be said that the present transfer is part of any frequent transfer being made by the respondents to 6 harass the petitioner rather the earlier frequent transfers were made pursuant to the representation of the petitioner himself. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that considering the totality of facts and the earlier representation of the petitioner the action of the respondents cannot be held to be mala fide. It is evident that the present transfer of the petitioner is after nearly a period of two years which in the case of a Bank cannot be said to be a pre-mature transfer. Moreover the transfer of the petitioner is as per the large scale transfer made in the Bank of as many as 22 officers which also includes the persons named in the writ petition, namely, Gajendra Nath Singh and Sadhu Sharan Singh who have been transferred after remaining for a long time in the same branch. The transfer order itself answers the grievance of the petitioner as raised before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the inclusion of the names of Gajendra Nath Singh and Sadhu Sharan Singh is a mere eye wash and, as 7 a matter of fact, there is no intention to relieve them from the present place by sending them to their transferred place. Be that as it may, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has completely failed to satisfy the Court that the transfer order is mala fide. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. So far as the allegation regarding non-relieving of certain employees who have remained in the same place for a long period of time and whose transfer also is covered by the same order, it is expected that authorities of the Bank will act in terms of their own office order in a fair manner to all their employees. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)