CWP No.849 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.849 OF 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 01-02-2008 Surinderpal Singh .....PETITIONER VERSUS Haryana State Coop. Agricultural Rural Development Bank and another .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr. R.D.Bawa Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. H.P.S.Bhinder, Advocate for Mr.A.P.S.Bhinder, Advocate for respondent No.2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P2 dated 10-01-2008 whereby the petitioner, working as a Clerk, was transferred from Kurukshetra to Kharkhoda in District Sonepat. It is the case of the petitioner that his transfer is on CWP No.849 of 2008 2 account of malafide of respondent No.2, who is the Minister of Cooperation and Agriculture. It is contended that his wife Parminder Kaur contested the election for Director of the Bank and has succeeded in the election. It is contended that since his wife is opposed to respondent No.2, therefore, he has been transferred, so as to punish the petitioner. The respondents have denied the allegation. Apart from the other reasons, which has been mentioned in the reply, the respondents have relied upon communication dated 3-1-2008 Annexure R3/1 wherein the Chief Executive Officer of the Kurukshetra District Primary Coop. Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Kurukshetra, where the petitioner was posted, has communicated to the Managing Director of respondent No.1 that after the election of Parminder Kaur, wife of the petitioner as Director of the Bank, the conduct of the petitioner has become quite unbecoming as he is usually threatening to the staff members for facing the dire consequences if they do not fulfill his unwanted demands. It is also pointed out that he is usually indulging in party politics and does not take any interest in the Bank work. He also creates nuisance in the Bank which adversely hits the functioning of the Bank. In view of the said communication of the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, we do not find that the transfer of the petitioner can be said to be an act of malafide. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, it may be observed that the present writ petition is to challenge the order of transfer, therefore, any expression of opinion in the above order is only for the purpose of dealing the challenge of CWP No.849 of 2008 3 the petitioner to the transfer order. We have not expressed any opinion on the contents of Annexure R3/1. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 01, 2008 JUDGE jt