Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganesh Chand Sharma vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 22 January, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1216 of 2013
Date of decision: 22nd January, 2013
Ganesh Chand Sharma
Petitioner
Versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
As per the averments made in this writ petition, petitioner joined the respondent-Bank vide appointment letter dated 15.07.2010 in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I as an Agriculture Officer (Specialist). Thereafter, he was posted to the Branch Office of respondent-Bank at Khatauli in Dehradun Region. Then the petitioner was posted at village Garhi Abdulla Khan, District Muzzafarnagar. However, on his request the petitioner was posted at Branch Office of the Bank at village Chandawali, District Faridabad, Haryana on 18.03.2011.
The petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) to Bareily Region and has been relieved with instructions to report to the Regional Head, Regional Office, Bareily immediately.
Civil Writ Petition No.1216 of 2013 2
The petitioner has also been issued a show cause notice vide order dated 17.01.2013 (Annexure P-11) to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him for defiance of the Rules/Instructions of the Head Office.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) as well as show cause notice dated 17.01.2013 (Annexure P-11) alleging that the aforesaid transfer order and the show cause notice are the result of arbitrariness of the respondent-authorities and is a malafide step to punish the petitioner, who is a whistleblower as he had taken courage to make a complaint against the DGM, RO Gurgaon who due to his personal grudge wants to settle his score against the petitioner, who had refused to oblige him for his illegal acts and thus, the impugned order of transfer as well as the show cause notice are liable to be quashed.
A perusal of the writ petition would show that despite alleging malafides of DGM, RO Gurgaon namely Sh.S.C. Pandey, he has not been arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition either in personal or official capacity. Moreover, no evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner to prove the allegations as alleged in this writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure P-8 (i.e. the letter dated 09.01.2013 written to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-Bank by the petitioner), wherein the petitioner has mentioned about the phone call of DGM, RO Gurgaon namely Sh.S.C. Pandey on the official telephone of the Bank. Civil Writ Petition No.1216 of 2013 3 The said reference of phone call is not sufficient to prove the malafides of the said DGM.
Not only this, at the asking of Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that DGM, RO Gurgaon namely Sh.S.C. Pandey was transferred on 26.09.2012 and in fact action has also been initiated against him on his complaint. If that is so, how the said DGM can in any manner pressurize the respondent-Bank to transfer the petitioner, is anybody's guess. Thus, the plea taken by the petitioner challenging his transfer on the ground of malafides of DGM, RO Gurgaon namely Sh.S.C. Pandey is wholly not tenable.
It may further be noticed at this stage that admittedly under the Regulations/Rules of the respondent-Bank, employees are not to approach the Head Office directly and therefore, this Court finds no fault on the part of the respondents for issuing show cause notice to the petitioner vide Annexure P-11 for initiating disciplinary proceedings.
No other point has been argued.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE January 22, 2013 rps