THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 8828 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman, is working as Security Officer (JMGS-II) in Andhra Bank. Pursuant to his appointment as such in the year 1990, he worked at various places i.e. Vijayawada, Chennai, Bhubaneshwar, and he came to be posted in the Head Office at Hyderabad from the month of April, 2006. While so, respondent No.1 - Andhra Bank, vide office order dated 15.04.2008, transferred the petitioner from the Head Office at Hyderabad to their Zonal Office at Guntur. Questioning, this transfer order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the transfer policy, only those who have completed five years of service at a place are liable for transfer, and requests for transfer are considered only after completion of three years at a particular place and that too only on medical grounds. He submitted that even though respondent No.2 did not complete three years of service at Guntur, who came to be posted at the said station in the month of April, 2006, yet on his request and with a view to accommodate him in the Head Office at Hyderabad, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned office order, transferring the petitioner from the Head Office at Hyderabad to the Zonal Office at Guntur, which is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that the petitioner admitted his children in the colleges at Hyderabad in the fond hope that he would be continued for a period of three years, and transferring him at this junction, would affect the studies of his children. He thus prayed that the impugned office order be quashed and the writ petition be allowed. Respondent No.1 – Andhra Bank filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 reiterating the counter averments submitted that the allegation made by the petitioner that respondent No.1 has issued the impugned office order to accommodate respondent No.2 is incorrect. He submitted that as per Regulation 47 of the Andhra Bank Officer’s Service Regulations, 1982, the petitioner is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or any place in India. He submitted that the petitioner has been transferred due to administrative requirements/exigencies. He submitted that there are three Security Officer in MMGS-III cadre and seven Security Officers in MMGS-II cadre. The bank has issued recruitment notification for recruitment of eleven Security Officers in MMGS-III cadre and the said process is going on. That Hyderabad Zone and Head Office are not having a Senior Security Officer in MMGS-III cadre to oversee and supervise the functions of the Security Department. The functions at Zonal Office and Head Office demand posting of a Senior Security Officer. The petitioner being an MMGS-II cadre Security Officer, was posted to Guntur Zone to shoulder lesser responsibility. He contended that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds and on no other ground. He thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Respondent No.2 also filed counter, and the counsel representing him, contended that respondent No.2 is a Senior Security Officer in MMGS-III cadre, who is specialized in fire safety, and respondent No.2 considering his vast experience vis-à-vis the security threat in Hyderabad, has transferred the petitioner from the Zonal Office at Guntur to the Head Office at Hyderabad, and purely on administrative needs and exigencies, but certainly not to accommodate him in the place of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is having two daughters – one had already been married and the other completed her MBA and is suitably employed. He thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 – Andhra Bank and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The law is well settled that transfer is in an incidence of service, and an order transferring an employee from one place to another cannot be interfered with unless the same is said to be fraught with mala fides or contrary to the transfer policy or is said to have been made for extraneous considerations. Even though, the petitioner contends that as per the transfer policy, unless he completes five years at a particular place in the case of regular transfer or three years in the case of request, he cannot be transferred from the present place of posting, and that to accommodate respondent No.2, the present impugned office order transferring him from the Head Office at Hyderabad to the Zonal Office at Guntur, has been issued by respondent No.1 – Andhra Bank, the fact remains, the same is denied both by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is the specific case of respondent No.1 – Andhra Bank that transfers have been effected on administrative grounds/exigencies. The petitioner is a Security Officer of MMGS – II cadre, which is junior level cadre, and keeping in view the security needs at the Head Office and the Zonal Office, which require to be managed by an experienced and senior security official, it was decided to post a senior level officer, and considering professional qualifications and experience and other factors, they have decided to post respondent No.2 who is a Senior Security Officer of MMGS – III cadre. In fact, in the letter dated 22.11.2008 addressed by the Assistant General Manager (HR) to their counsel, they have communicated as follows: The third Sr. Security Officer Mr. Rawat (respondent No.2) is presently stationed at Guntur. He was transferred to Hyderabad Zone as it was felt that a Jr. Officer in MMGS-II can handle the security interest of Guntur Zone. The branch coverage of our Hyderabad Zone is about 150. Apart from that we also have 200 ATMs in the Zone. Further, Hyderabad has also become the target for terrorist attacks. It was also out intention to give Mr. Rawat the additional responsibility of handing the security of Head Office and assist the Chief Security Officer & Assist General Manager, as a Jr Officer cannot handle the twin responsibilities of handling security of Hyderabad Zone and assisting of the Chief Security Officer & Asst General Manager besides looking after the security interest of the Corporate Office. Bank cannot take any chance and cannot compromise in the matter of security of its personnel and property more so of its Corporate Office. Thus there is immediate need of a Sr. Level Security Officer at Hyderabad. Any delay in the matter is not in the interest of the Bank. From the above, it is clear that respondent No.2 is a Sr. level Security Officer, and he has been sought to be posted at the present place not only to take care of Hyderabad Zone, but also assist the Chief Security Officer at the Head Office. That being so, and the petitioner being an officer of respondent No.1 – Andhra Bank, cannot contend that he should be posted or retained at a particular place. The petitioner being an officer of the bank, is liable to be transferred to any place in India, and this is evident from Regulation 47 of Andhra Bank Officer’s Service Regulations, 1982, which provides that every officer is liable for transfer any office or branch of the bank or any place in India. In fact, according to the petitioner, he had been transferred previously and had worked at different stations. The petitioner, in fact, at the present station has been working since April, 2006, in that he had continued at Hyderabad for more than two and a half years. Since the petitioner is said to have been displaced on administrative grounds and not on any other, and the posting of respondent No.2 at Hyderband where the petitioner has been previously working, having been made keeping in view the security needs at Hyderabad, both at the Head Office and the Zonal Office, and having regard to Regulation 47 of Andhra Bank Officer’s Service Regulations, 1982, which enables the Bank to transfer its employees to any office or branch of the bank or any place in India, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the impugned office order issued by respondent No.1 – Andhra Bank transferring the petitioner from the Head Office at Hyderabad to their Zonal Office at Guntur, and posting respondent No.2 in the Head Office at Hyderabad, and more so when the petitioner failed to prove that the transfer has been made contrary to the rules or that it has been made with mala fide intention to accommodate respondent No.2. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 11th December, 2008. KSR