Judgment:
ORDER
E. Padmanabhan, J.
1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in his office proceedings No. ZOCH/PD/OS/154831/STO 232/2003, dated 6.5.2003 and to quash the same.
2. Heard Mr. R.N. Amarnath, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. Karthick, learned counsel for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., appearing for the respondents.
3. The writ petitioner challenges the order fo transfer passed by the 3rd respondent transferring him from Chennai Nandanam Branch/Office to Nagarasampatti by the impugned communication dated 6.5.2003. The petitioner has referred to the earlier order of dismissal from service for certain charges and his filing W.P.17225 of 1991 in which this court set aside the order of dismissal. During the year 1996 the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager in Civil Lines at Mordadabad Branch between 30.12.1996 to 26.8.2001. From Mordadabad the petitioner was transferred to Nandanam branch where he joined during August 2001. The petitioner also filed WP. No.14720 of 2003 which is pending wherein he has challenged the punishment of reduction in pay. The petitioner had to file W.P. No. 45137 of 2002 while he was serving at Moradabad to consider his request for transfer.
4. It is alleged that with vindictive attitude and in order to harass, with mala fide intention the order of transfer dated 6.5.2003 was served on 10.5.2003. It is contended that the said order of transfer has been passed with ulterior motive. The various other allegations have been set out with which we are not concerned. On 10.5.2003, the petitioner submitted a representation. By the order impugned the petitioner was transferred to Nagarasampatti in Dharmapuri District. Such an order of transfer has been passed with vindictive attitude and as a result of the earlier order in WMP. No. 18395 of 2003 in W.P.No.14720 of 2003. It is also contended that the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides and it has been passed without any authority. It is further contended that as a counter blast to the order passed by this court in WMP.NO:18395 of 2003, the order of transfer has been imposed as a punishment.
5. In the additional grounds it is contended that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the petitioner has not completed or will be completing active service of at Chennai on 30.6.2003. The impugned order is not warranted by the exigencies of services. Even if there are exigencies the order of transfer can only be passed by the General Manager of the Head Office and not by the subordinate officers.
6. Rule Nisi was ordered on 30.5.2003 and interim stay was granted on 13.5.2003. To vacate the interim stay the respondents have come before this court by fling WVMP.No:1143 of 2003.
7. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed. As seen from the counter affidavit, it is seen that the second respondent Bank is a Nationalised Bank and its clerical staff are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A clerical staff on promotion will become JMG Scale I. From JMG Scale I the advancement of officers goes up MMG II, MMG III, CM IV., AGM V., DGM VI and GM VII. Such officers are liable to be transferred and posted anywhere in India.
8. It is the case of the respondent that there is a codified transfer policy laying down norms for transfer of officers. Whenever JMG Scale I officer is promoted to MMG II or an MMG II to MMG III, one of the conditions of the promotion is that they should serve in rural area branch for a minimum period of three years, excepting certain specialised category. An officer who serve in a rural area branch for three years will be considered and posted to a Station other than rural areas wherever necessary, officers though already completed rural term may be posted to rural branches once again depending on the exigencies of service.
9. The respondents further state that routine transfers are normally ordered before the commencement of academic years. The Head Office issue usually circulars every year about the norms to be adopted in the matter of selecting the officers for transfer. Selection of officers for transfer is made based on exigencies of administrative compliance of a mandatory provision of serving a rural branch, accommodation of request transfers and completion of the maximum period of service in a particular station. The list of officers for transfer is finalised in the Zonal office taking into consideration the norms laid by the Head Office and the same is finalised after deliberation by General Manager (Personnel), Assistant General Manager (Personnel) and Senior Manager (Personnel) of the Zonal Office.
10. When the list of officers for transfer for the year 2003 came up for consideration the details of officers in Scale-II who did not serve in rural branch were collected and it was found that seven officers in Scale II in Chennai Region including the petitioner after their promotion had not served in rural branch. Similarly officers in Coimbatore Region were identified and posted to rural branches. The petitioner is one of the officers in Chennai Region among the seven who has not worked in the rural branch and therefore he became to be posted at Nagarasampatti. The transfer of the petitioner from Nandanam Branch, Chennai to Nagarasampatti in Dharmapuri District was made bona fide, justified and was done in conformity with the transfer policy framed by the Bank.
11. The various contentions advanced by the petitioner are devoid of merits. The petitioner was promoted from JMG I to MMG II on 3.5.2001 and the promotion letter squarely stipulate that promotion was subject to the completion of mandatory service in rural branch as per Circular dated 2.6.1988. During 2002, as there was no vacancy he was not considered for and transferred to rural branch. Since there was sufficient vacancies in rural areas on Tamil Nadu Zone in the year 2003, the petitioner along with 14 other officers were transferred to rural branches as detailed in para 2 of the counter affidavit, in the Madras Region as well as Coimbatore Region. The orders passed in WMP.NO.18395 of 2003 referred to by the petitioner has no bearing on the petitioner's transfer as the transfer was purely to comply with the mandatory condition to serve in rural centres.
12. The various contentions advanced in the writ petition as well as the additional grounds raised are devoid of merits. The transferring of the petitioner from Nandanam Branch to Nagarasampatti in Dharmapuri District is part of the routine transfer of officers and the order of stay is working hardship. Mr. Maharajan, Manager of Nagarasampatti has already served in that branch for three years and he is entitled to be posted to some urban branch offices but, he has been inconvenienced and the order of interim stay has to be vacated. The allegations of mala fide are denied and devoid of merits.
13. A reply affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner denying various averments and stating that transfer is one of the conditions of promotion or that the officer has to serve in rural area branch for a minimum of three years. No such condition has been attached to the promotion of the officers. The petitioner claims that he has Eight years of remaining service and he is willing to work in a rural area after completion of 4 years service in Chennai, where he is presently working. According to the instruction issued in the matter of transfer of officers for the year 2003, the officers who completed or will be completing active service of four years in a place, on or before 30.6.2003 are liable for transfer. Many persons including the petitioner are working in a Station for more than 4 years. The petitioner has also pointed out some other officers who have been allowed to work at Madras for more than three years. It is incorrect to point out that seven officers have served in rural branches after promotion. It is also pointed out that transfer order was not issued on 6.5.2003 as alleged.
14. The points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are:-
(i) Whether the order of transfer has been passed by the third respondent who has neither authority, nor jurisdiction?
(ii) Whether the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides and arbitrariness?
(iii) Whether the order of transfer is liable to be interfered?
(iv) To what relief if any?
15. As regards the first contention that the third respondent is not the competent authority, and that he has no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner from Nandanam Branch to Nagarasampatti, at the time of hearing the counsel for the petitioner did not press the point. Factually, at the appropriate level in Chennai Region as well as Coimbatore Region Officers, who have not served in rural branch were identified and directions were issued. The third respondent is the competent authority who has passed the orders. Therefore the first point has to be answered against the writ petitioner and in favour of the respondent.
17. As regards the second contention the allegations of mala fide though made has not been substantiated and the respondents have stoutly denied the same. As stated in para 2 and 3 of the counter affidavit, officers who have not served in the rural branches have been identified, the level of officers were identified and orders of transfer has been passed bonafidely in exercise of powers conferred on the third respondent and there is no mala fide. It may be that the petitioner on the earlier occasion filed more than two writ petitions, but it has nothing to do with the present order of transfer. Para 2 and 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is a complete answer and there is nothing to suggest that the order is vitiated by mala fides or arbitrariness.
18. Though it is contended that the petitioner should not have been transferred as per the circular, on completion of active service of four years in a place/zone on or before 30.6.2003, in the present case it is seen that the order of transfer has been passed on 6.5.2003 and the criteria being that the petitioner has not worked in a rural branch after his promotion to the present scale, though more than two years elapsed. The reliance placed upon the circular will have no application to the facts of the present case. That apart such circular/letter General Transfer of Officers relied upon by the petitioner applies to a different contingency and not a transfer which is warranted by exigencies of service. The petitioner has not served in any rural branches and so also 15 others who were identified and they have been transferred. Therefore, it cannot be held that the order is vitiated by mala fides nor it is vindictive, nor it suffers with arbitrariness. Hence the second point is answered against the writ petitioner.
19. Taking up the third point, the powers of judicial review in respect of transfer is very limited. On facts, it is not as if the order of transfer has been passed by an authority who is not competent to pass, and it is not as if transfer is not a condition of service and admittedly in the present case the officers like the petitioner are liable to be transferred and they have to work in rural areas.
20. The allegation of mala fide have been stoutly denied and there is nothing to suggest that the orders of transfer is vitiated by mala fides. When the transfer is a condition of service and when the officers of the particular level are required to work in rural branches, they cannot insist that they shall work only urban branches only. The power of transfer in this case is well within the authority of the respondents and transfer being a condition of service and transfer in the present case warranted by administrative exigencies and in terms of the policy, this court holds that there is no illegality in the order of transfer, nor the transfer is liable to be interfered in exercise of powers of judicial review under Art. 226.
21. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with cost. Consequently WMP and WVMP are closed.