IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17528 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 16.11.2009 Jaipal Singh ... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner is working as Branch Manager in the Mohindergarh Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent bank'). Vide order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P-1), he was transferred from Branch Office Nangal Sirohi to Branch Office Satnali, by the General Manager (respondent No.3 herein) of the respondent bank. Immediately thereafter, on the next day, vide order dated 22.8.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by the same officer, the said transfer order was withdrawn with immediate effect, and it was ordered that the petitioner will work as Branch Manager, Branch Office Nangal Sirohi as usual. The petitioner challenged the order dated 22.8.2009 by filing a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge, Mohindergarh, alleging that respondent No.3 was not CWP No. 17528 of 2009 -2- competent to withdraw the transfer order. In para 6 of the petition, it has been stated that the said civil suit has been withdrawn, as the same was not maintainable. However, neither the order of withdrawal of the suit has been annexed nor it has been stated that the said suit was withdrawn with liberty to file the instant petition. It appears that when the civil court did not grant stay to the petitioner, he withdrew the said suit, without any liberty, because the respondent bank has issued a show cause notice as to why the departmental proceedings be not initiated against the petitioner, as he had disobeyed the order of the bank and is not assuming the duty at branch office Nangal Sarohi. In the instant petition, it is alleged that respondent No.3 was having no jurisdiction to withdraw the transfer order, which was made by the Registrar, Co-operative Society. It has also been stated that the petitioner is going to retire on 28.2.2011 and Branch Office, Satnali is nearer to the place of residence of the petitioner, therefore, withdrawal of the transfer order of the petitioner will cause hardship to him. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise on the writ jurisdiction of this Court, as it is clear from the order dated 21.8.2009 (Annexure P-1) that the General Manager of the respondent bank had passed the order of transfer, which was withdrawn by the same authority on the next day, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.3 was not competent to withdraw the transfer order, which was passed by him. Even CWP No. 17528 of 2009 -3- otherwise, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. The General Manager-cum-Managing Director of the respondent bank is fully competent to transfer an employee from one branch to another. Secondly, on the basis of the alleged hardship, the impugned order cannot be set aside. No merit. Dismissed. November 16, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE