1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 9318/09 Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. The S.B.B.J. & ors. Date of Order: 6.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. S.N. Trivedi for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Lohra for the respondents. ... The petitioner, the officer of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was posted to the Ladnu Branch of the Bank as Branch Manager vide order dated 2.5.2009 from Bikaner Branch. Now, the petitioner has been transferred to Jalore Branch of the Bank as Manager of the Division and he has been relieved vide communication dated 17.9.2009 by which he has been intimated that it has been decided to transfer the petitioner to Jalore Branch. The petitioner has challenged this order of transfer dated 17.9.2009, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.2, on the ground that the transfer order has been passed by the Assistant General Manager of the Bank, who was not competent to pass such order and the transfer order could have been passed only by the General Manager(Operations). The respondents submitted detail reply admitting that competent authority to pass the order of transfer for 2 petitioner is the General Manager(Operations). However, the respondents submitted that the Deputy General Manager of the respondent-Bank, Jodhpur initiated the proceeding for transfer of the petitioner by writing a letter to the General Manager(Operations) concerned vide letter dated 2.9.2009 and requested for transfer of the petitioner. The matter was processed in the office of the General Manager concerned by the Deputy General Manager(HR) and, thereafter, report was submitted to the General Manager(Operations) stating therein that the General Manager is competent to transfer the petitioner as well as can post Shri Y.K. Bhaskar as Manager. Said recommendation was approved by the General Manager himself and in consequence thereof only, the impugned transfer order was passed which is clear from the endorsement made by the General Manager on the office report and that is clear from the endorsement which is on Annex.R/1. The respondents gave detail reasons under what circumstances the petitioner has been transferred. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that inspite of transfer order and relieving of the petitioner on 17.9.2009, the petitioner has not yet joined to his transferred post. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 3 the endorsement made in the margin of Annex.R/1 bears no seal of the General Manager (Operations) and this endorsement only conveyed that the General Manager sought the explanation from the petitioner employee and it is not the approval of the transfer recommended by the Deputy General Manager(HR). I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner's transfer was sought by the Deputy General Manager of the respondent- Bank at Jodhpur where the petitioner was working. He by this letter dated 2.9.2009, informed about the conduct of the petitioner and necessity for his transfer. The matter was processed by the Deputy General Manager(HR), obviously, it could have been done before placing the matter before the General Manager(Operations) of the respondent-Bank. The General Manager(Operations) of the respondent-Bank wrote that the explanation be also sought from Shri Sharma and same be placed before the competent authority for consideration. This endorsement is being disputed by the petitioner by saying that this is not approval of the recommendation of the General Manager (Operations), but it is only an endorsement of seeking explanation of the 4 petitioner for placing it before the competent authority. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the recommendation of the Deputy General Manager by communication dated 2.9.2009 was clear and ambiguous seeking the transfer of the petitioner, which was duly forwarded to the competent authority, General Manager(Operations) and before it could be placed before the General Manager(Operations), the matter was examined by the Deputy General Manager(HR), who opined that the transfer order of the petitioner can be passed by the General Manager(Operations), then it was placed before the General Manager(Operations), whose endorsement, though was not very clear but clearly suggests that with the approval for transfer, explanation was sought from the petitioner for his conduct, as revealed by the Deputy General Manager of the respondent-Bank. The respondent also submitted in affidavit that the endorsement made though bears no seal of the General Manager concerned but it has been signed by the General Manager. In view of the above fact position that the recommendation of the transfer of the petitioner has been duly approved by the General Manager(Operations) of the respondent-Bank, therefore, the order of transfer of the petitioner has been issued in pursuance of the decision 5 taken by the competent authority-General Manager (Operations). Hence there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.