IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10855 of 2008 Between: K. Satyanarayana S/o late K. Sathaiah, R/o Plot No. 25, LB Colony, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad-500 015. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 UCO Bank, A Government of India Undertaking having their registered office at 10, BTM, Sarani Kolkatta-700 001, rep by their Chairman and managing Director. 2 The Chairman and Managing Director, UCO,. Bank, Head Office, BTM., Sarani, Kolkatta-700 001. 3 The Deputy General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, UCO bank Zonal Office, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034. 4 The Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Road No.10, banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Order or direction inthe nature of a Writ declaring the proceedings dated 31-12- 2007 issued by the 4th respondent as also the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 07-02-2008 bearing No. PSD/TPC/2007-08/2290 as absolutely arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and also revised Transfer Policy of the respondent bank and consequently direct the respondents to retained the petitioner in Andhra Pradesh zone inthe interest of justice and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NALIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.AJAYAKUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10855 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 31.12.2007 and that of the 2nd respondent dated 7.2.2008 as arbitrary and discriminatory and contrary to the revised transfer policy of the 1st respondent. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the respondent bank as an Assistant Cashier and Godown Keeper at their Visakhapatnam branch on 21.6.1976. He was promoted as Officer Grade-I in April, 1996. While he was working as an Assistant Manager in the Attili Branch, West Godavari District, he was transferred vide proceedings dated 4.4.2002 and asked to report at the Regional Office, Ahmedabad. On his reporting thereat, he was transferred to a semi-urban branch at Dhoraji in Rajkot District of the State of Gujarat. On completion of 3 years service, he was posted at Sanga Reddy, Medak District in the month of May, 2005. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 31.12.2007, he was transferred and asked to report at Srinagar Branch. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 14.1.2008 bringing to his notice that almost all his colleagues who were repatriated from Ahmedabad were promoted as Scale I/II/III officers except himself, that he was left with 3 years of service and that he had not even completed 3 years of service after being repatriated from Gujarat. The petitioner contends that he was not identified as surplus nor had he opted for transfer to the branch office at Srinagar and that there were several candidates in Scale II/III who had not worked at any point of time outside the zone. He requested that the transfer order be cancelled. By proceedings dated 7.2.2008, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that his representation had been placed before the competent authority who had not acceded to his request. The petitioner was, thereafter, informed vide proceedings dated 24.4.2008 to report at Srinagar branch immediately in accordance with the instructions contained in the letter dated 31.12.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition. Petitioner contends that he was issued show cause notice on 15.11.2007 alleging misconduct on his part in drawal of travel allowance, his claim for travel allowance on certain cancelled tickets and reimbursement of hotel expenses. Petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 5.12.2007 requesting that copies of certain documents be supplied to him. The 3rd respondent is said to have straight away issued charge memo dated 14.2.2008 and the petitioner is said to have submitted his representation dated 7.3.2008 requesting for certain documents to be furnished to him to enable him to submit his explanation. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had issued letters dated 19.3.2008 and 21.4.2008 asking him to appear before the enquiry officer. Petitioner contends that the enquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice, that he was not supplied with the required documents and that the enquiry officer, without furnishing the required documents, had called for his written brief vide letter dated 7.5.2008. Petitioner claims to have submitted a letter dated 10.5.2008 stating that the disciplinary authority was the Zonal Manager and the enquiry officer had colluded with the presenting officer. Petitioner would contend that the revised transfer policy for officers contemplates that, for the purpose of inter-state transfers, officers should be identified on the basis of the longest continuous stay for inter-state movement, that the officers who have never worked outside the State domicile should be listed first, that, thereafter, officers who have served outside the State in Scale-I should be listed, that in the present case the said exercise had not been done, that several officers in Scale I, II and III who had the longest stay in Andhra Pradesh Zone, without suffering any inter- state transfer, were retained in A.P. zone while he was transferred for the second time by way of an inter-state transfer to Srinagar. Petitioner contends that only after he was transferred, vide proceedings dated 31.12.2007, was the exercise of identifying officers who had completed continuous longest stay in the zone commenced as was evident from the letter dated 14.4.2008. Petitioner contends that he is due to retire on 30.6.2011 and, if the transfer is effected at the fag end of his service, it would cause serious disturbance in his domestic life, that officers who had suffered inter-state transfers earlier could not be subjected to inter - state transfer again without identifying officers who had the longest stay in the zone without suffering any inter-state transfer and it is only when the services of an officer who had suffered inter-state transfer were required, due to non-availability of other officers who did not suffer inter-state transfer, could he be considered for inter- state transfer. Petitioner would contend that the 2nd respondent had not considered his representation and the same was disposed of by a non-speaking order. He would submit that the transfer order was issued by way of punishment even while the departmental enquiry was pending as was evident from the fact that the petitioner was transferred to Srinagar Branch and the branch was advised to utilize his services in an innocuous post and that this by itself speaks about the malafides and also exposes the real reasons that weighed with the authorities to transfer him to Srinagar branch. Petitioner would submit that earlier one Mr.M.V.S.N.Murthy was transferred contrary to the transfer policy of the respondent bank and that the writ petition filed by him was disposed of by common order dated 2.5.2008 holding that the provisions of the transfer policy could not be ignored without valid reasons and that the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner. Petitioner would contend that, in the present case, the objections raised by the petitioner had not been considered by the competent authority. He would state that he was on sick leave as he was suffering from bronchitis, that if at this stage he was transferred to a cold place like Jammu and Kashmir he would be put to irreparable loss. He would state that nobody has been posted in his place and it is necessary that an ex-parte interim order be passed. Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on Clause 26.3.2 of the transfer policy to contend that officers who have never served outside their state of domicile were required to be listed first according to their descending order of longest continues stay and only thereafter officers who had served outside their State were required to be listed. Learned Counsel would place reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5304 of 2008 dated 2.5.2008 to contend that any transfer, contrary to the transfer policy was illegal as any deviation from the transfer policy guidelines should be based on valid reasons. While the norms for transfer of an officer is governed by Regulation 47 of the UCO Bank Officers’ (Service) Regulations, 1979, the transfer policy, which are broad operational guidelines, are not referable to the provisions of any statute or the rules made thereunder. They are but administrative guidelines which do not have the force of law. It is true that an order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set-up of the employees concerned but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. In a transferable post, an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. (Rajendra Roy v. Union of India[1]) No government servant, or an employee of a public sector undertaking, has any legal right to be posted forever at one particular place, or at a place of his choice, since transfer of a particular employee, appointed to the class or category of transferable posts, from one place to another is an incident of service necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, courts or the tribunals would not, ordinarily, interfere with such orders, as if they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management. (National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan[2], State of U.P. v. Siya Ram[3], Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath[4]). Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. While ordering the transfer the authority must, no doubt, keep in mind the guidelines issued on the subject. Guidelines, however, do not confer upon the employee a legally enforceable right. Courts/Tribunals would not quash orders of transfer solely on the ground that administrative guidelines have not been followed, much less can it be characterized as malafide for that reason. (Union of India v. S.L.Abbas[5]). Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, courts, ordinarily, do not interfere for if courts were to do so there would be complete chaos in administration which would not be conducive to public interest. (Mrs.Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar[6]) An order of transfer should not be lightly interfered with by Courts in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is malafide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order. (State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal[7]; Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P[8]). Clause 26.3.2 of the operational guidelines, on which reliance is placed by Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, provides that, while identifying officers on the basis of longest continuous stay for inter-state movement, officers who have never served outside their State of domicile shall be listed first according to their descending order of longest continuous stay and, thereafter, officers who had served outside their State of domicile in Scale-I shall be listed. Clause 26.3.2 is under Clause 26.3, which, in turn, is under Clause 26. Clause 26 of the operational guidelines/revised transfer policy relates to the policy for deployment of officers on promotion. Clause 26.3 relates to officers promoted from Scale-I to II. It is not even the case of the petitioner that his present transfer is pursuant to his promotion from a lower scale to a higher scale and, as such, reliance placed on Clause 26.3.2 is misplaced. While the petitioner’s transfer from Sangareddy in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh to far away Srinagar, more particularly in the light of the specific averment that he suffers from bronchitis and his transfer to a cold place could affect his health, no doubt, seems harsh, these are all matters, however, for the competent authority to decide and not for this Court to sit in judgment. The petitioner had, in fact, submitted a representation, which has been rejected by the competent authority. An order of transfer does not become punitive merely because disciplinary proceedings are pending against an employee. The very fact that no order of punishment has as yet been imposed on the petitioner, pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, would belie his contention that the order of transfer is a malafide exercise of power. Even otherwise the petitioner has not attributed malice to the officer who passed the order of transfer much less has he been arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition. It is settled law that the person against whom malafides are imputed should be impleaded eo- nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. (State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma[9]) In the light of the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5304 of 2008, dated 02.05.2008 is misplaced. Since transfer is an incident of service, and operational guidelines relating to transfer cannot be enforced in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner’s request to this Court to interfere with the order of transfer must fail. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: .06.2008. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. ASP/GS [1] (1993) 1 SCC 148 [2] (2001)8 SCC 574 [3] (2004) 7 SCC 405 [4] (2004)4 SCC 245 [5] 1993(4) SCC 357 [6] AIR 1991 SC 532 [7] (2001)5 SCC 508 [8] (2003) 4 SCC 104 [9] AIR 1991 SC 1260