Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 18 March 2019 in a Writ Appeal arising out of an order of the learned Single Judge dated 11 February 2019.

4 The respondent was appointed as a Probationary Officer of the Punjab and Sind Bank, the first appellant, on 8 October 1998 in Junior Management Grade Scale I. She was promoted to the post of Chief Manager in Scale IV. On 2 September 2011, the respondent was transferred to the Zonal Office at Mumbai. On 7 October 2011, she was transferred to the Branch Office at Indore. In September 2016, the first respondent was promoted to the post of Chief Manager in Scale IV. On 23 September 2016, the competent authority of the bank decided to continue her at the branch in Indore upon promotion. On 11 December 2017, the respondent was transferred from the Branch Office at Indore to the Branch Office at Sarsawa in the district of Jabalpur. Intimation of the transfer was furnished to her on 14 December 2017. On 31 January 2018, the respondent submitted a representation to the Zonal Manager, recording a reference to the circulars of the bank governing the posting of women officers. She made a request for being retained at Indore. Following the earlier representation, she submitted a reminder on 15 February 2018 and a representation on 19 February 2018 to the Executive Director of the bank. 5 In the course of her representations, the respondent submitted that during the course of the previous two years, she had, as a Branch Manager, inquired into the concentration of accounts maintained by liquor contractors at the branch and had detected grave irregularities which were hazardous to the interest of the bank. The respondent had submitted a detailed report to the Zonal Manager, Bhopal on 31 December 2016. In her report, she made several observations about lapses such as the existence of duplicate Bank Guarantee registers. She had recorded that the registers were not identical and some entries are missing from the new register. She observed that limits were sanctioned to parties not having any connection to Indore for the execution of liquor contracts. The Respondent’s grievance was that instead of taking steps to rectify the irregularities, she was being pressurized to cover up the misdemeanors at the level of the branch. Moreover, she alleged that this was compounded by the Zonal Manager (who was named) calling her at late hours at home to discuss business which was not of urgent nature. The respondent made a specific allegation against the Zonal Manager. For the purpose of the present proceedings, it would be necessary to extract from the representation which was submitted by the respondent to the Executive Director. It reads thus:

Place of W.E.F. Total Tenure Reasons for transfer posting Branch Office, 08.10.1998 2.5 years Joined the Bank at Jaipur Jaipur Station at the place of her Road, Jaipur domicile.

Zonal Office,    11.04.2001       3.1 years    Routine   transfer and
               Jaipur                                         remained posted at her
                                                              domicile.
               Branch Office,   11.05.2004       3.1 years    Transferred to spouse’s
               Gandhi Road,                                   place of posting.
               Ahmedabad
               Branch Office,   07.06.2007       1.10 years   Routine transfer.   Her
               Reid Road,                                     husband was also posted
               Ahmedabad                                      at Ahmedabad or nearby.
               Branch Office,   02.04.2009       2.5 years    Routine transfer.   Her
               Pushpak                                        husband was also posted
               Complex,                                       at Ahmedabad or nearby.
               Ahmedabad
               Zonal Office,    02.09.2011       01 month     Transfer on promotion
               Mumbai                                         from Scale II to Scale III.
               Branch Office,   07.10.2011       08 months    Transfer   on   promotion




               PY Road, Indore                                from Scale II to Scale III.
               Branch Office,    29.06.2012       4.1 years   Routine     transfer    to
               Nanda Nagar,                                   spouse’s place of posting.
               Indore
               Branch Office, 05.07.2016          1.5 years   Even after the promotion
               PY Road, Indore as 2nd Man                     kept at the same place of
                               20.09.2016                     posting
                               as Incharge
                               (on
                               promotion
                               to Scale-IV)




        11     It is urged that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Division

12 On merits, it was urged by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that in the initial representation that was submitted by the respondent on 31 January 2018, there was no reference to either the allegations of irregularities at the branch which had been detected by her or of sexual harassment by the Zonal Manager. It was urged that these allegations were set up in the communication dated 19 February 2018 addressed to the Executive Director. Learned senior counsel submitted that the order of transfer was issued by the Executive Director on the recommendation of three General Manager level officers and, as a consequence, it would be far-fetched to attribute the malafides which were urged against the Zonal Manager to the authority which had effected the transfer. Moreover, it was urged that the Internal Complaints Committee1 of the bank had, upon enquiring into the allegations which were levelled by the respondent, found that there was no substance in those allegations in its report dated 26 February 2019. The bank has submitted that upon the receipt of the complaint of the respondent, the bank had carried out a vigilance and special audit. On these grounds, it was urged that the settled principle of restraint in matters of judicial review, where transfer is an exigency of service, must apply in the facts of this case. In this context, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Bank of India v Jagjit Singh Mehta2, State of UP v Gobardhan Lal3 and Rajendra Singh v State of UP4.

15 The third set of documents is that, according to Mr Gonsalves, the original order of transfer dated 14 December 2017 had proposed the transfer of the respondent from Indore to a branch falling under the Zonal Office at Dehradun. Mr Gonsalves submitted that the original order of transfer was subsequently modified so as to provide for a transfer and posting to a branch at Sarsawa in the district of Jabalpur where the respondent would continue under the administrative control of the same Zonal Office.