Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) By this writ application (C.O. 6388 of 1994), the petitioner has challenged an order of transfer dated 23rd May, 1994 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank). By this impugned order, the petitioner along with other employees was transferred to Chinsurah Branch in the capacity of Senior Supervisor from the Head Office. The fact of the case on which the challenge is founded, is shortly put as follows : The petitioner at all material time is an employee of the said Bank and presently posted as Loan Section In-charge, which is equivalent to the Branch Manager. He also claims to be the General Secretary to the Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Staff Association since 1987 and also a Vice-president of All Bengal Co-operative Federation (ABCF in short). He was initially appointed as an Office Assistant in Grade-II in 1975. The said Grade was re-numbered as Grade V and VI in 1982. The petitioner was transferred to various departments in 1979, 1980, 1984 and in 1986. In 1986, he was posted at the Loan Section in the Head Office as an Office Assistant under the Branch Manager who was in-charge of Loan Section. The petitioner had obtained special training in the workshop in co-operative statistics. Consequent upon transfer of the then Branch Manager, Loan Section, at Head Office, the petitioner was given the charge of Loan Section, as such, he was appointed as In-charge of the Section to officiate. Thus, he claims to have been promoted to Grade IV from Grade V vide by the said order dated 20th December 1988. Since then, he had been discharging his duties as an In-charge, Loan Section, till 23rd May 1994. His position at the transferred place is inferior to that of the post of Loan Section, In-charge and, therefore, he has been demoted and/or his rank has been reduced without any reason or giving any opportunity of being heard. He claims further that having had continuously worked for six years in the post of Loan Section, he had reasonably expected to be confirmed in the said post and acquired the status of permanent holder of the post, permanent in nature. His further case is that he being the Office Bearer of the said Association is not liable to be transferred from the Head Office to any Branch Office. The impugned transfer order is meant to victimise the petitioner to curb his activities as protected workman in violation of Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, read with the award passed by the Tribunal on the question of transferability of protected workers.
(2.) Mr. Sitaram Bhattacharya, learned Advocate, appearing in support of the writ petition submits that the impugned order of transfer is illegal and unconstitutional in view of the fact that the same is in effect an order of punishment and this order has been passed without following the established procedure of law. No show-cause notice was served nor any enquiry was held against the petitioner to pass this impugned order.
(3.) He highlights this point that for long six years he has been officiating as a Branch Manager of the Loan Section and because of such prolonged officiation, the petitioner has acquired the right to be absorbed in the said post under the relevant co-operative rules. The post to which the petitioner has been transferred is inferior to that of the posts he had been officiating. Even his client was not paid the equivalent salary as was required to be done under the rules for such officiation. The petitioner has reasonable and legitimate expectation to be absorbed in the said post of Branch Manager in Loan Section. By passing the impugned order, his right accrued in course of time, has been taken away by this impugned order. In support of his submission, he has relied on decisions of the Supreme Court reported in as follows : (1) AIR 1984 SC 1854 (2) AIR 1962 SC 1704 (3) AIR 1958 SC 36 (4) AIR 196 SC 1197. He has relied on a large number of decisions on the question of maintainability of the writ petition. This Court thinks it fit not to record or consider the above decisions as this question has not been taken or agitated by the learned Counsel for the respondent. ;